pchapman

Obviously you're thinking it is a Precision Wrap-It, but that line is new to me too! (And the Wrap-It instructions don't show that kind of dyed Spectra.) Edit: While j-rodd can phone Precision during the week, I guess we're looking for someone to confirm that this is indeed what it seems to be.

Despite my being skeptical about some atmo-evangelists, clearly atmo is a different style of flying needing somewhat different skills, so as long as people in sufficient countries are doing it, then it makes sense to try to create an international discipline. But one question: Are there already atmo competitions, based on either artistic scores, and/or specific formations & maneuvers? Then there would be something to take to the FAI to show that a competition environment already exists, that the activity is mature enough and worthy of FAI time, something beyond just a fun new challenge. Maybe atmo enthusiasts just want a forum within the FAI to start to get together to discuss what possibilities for competition exist. So one could have Competition first, Recognition second, or do it the other way around. I'm thinking that having Competition first would make Recognition easier. But I know nothing about the FAI or the higher levels of atmonauti flight.

Doesn't Religion go into Speaker's Corner?

For some reason I'll get into this futile discussion. It is possible that the camera was a factor -- ie, it "may have contributed" -- there being a more than 0.0% chance that the camera influenced his behaviour. Yet we see basically zero actual evidence for it. So "he would have performed just as poorly without it" seems fairly justified too, fairly likely to be essentially true. I just don't remember anything about the video that indicated that he was thinking about the camera shot at all. (I could be wrong.) I'll grant that the camera could have been a general distraction - perhaps he had fiddled with it on jump run when he should have thought about the exit separation plans, and strategy to deal with any clouds encountered. But we have no direct evidence to accuse him of that. Overall, I guess it is ok to say the camera MAY have contributed. But indirect supposition is not direct evidence. The video suggests that in at least some way, he's a screwed up noob, which is I suppose indirect evidence that a camera might distract him from a successful skydive -- but for him, so might an untied shoelace or something shiny...

Various ideas have been thrown around, but in practice, companies often make only a couple sizes. Custom sized may be available on request. Here's some info I collected years ago, with no guarantee as to quality or that it still applies. It at least gives an idea of the variety of ideas out there: ===== Standard PC on a Javelin is 27" ============ [Atair] [note: they were known for recommending smaller sizes than other companies] Recommended pilot for cobalt 150-170 is a 24" zero-p kill line collapsible. Recommended pilot for Cobalts 65-135 is a 22"-24" zero-p kill line collapsible. NOTE: many containers come standard with a 28-32" pilot. This is more than double the recommended surface area required. A 28” pilot will cause brisk openings especially at higher speeds. =========== [Rigs & Things Paraservice] 24" ZP 27" ZP =========== [RWS] Custom available but normally: 27" ZP 32" F-111 Billbooth 2002: He says they make 24" (on request only), 28" standard, 32" I think for big stuff. But he also recommended: Re: Is Your Hand Deploy Pilot Chute Correctly Made? [In reply to] Quote | Reply I recommend a 28" - 30" ZP pilot chute for canopies from 100 to 220 sq.ft., and a 24" ZP for canopies below 100 sq. ft. We also make a 34" F-111 pilot chute for canopies 200 sq. ft. and larger. ... If you do a lot of head down, and often open above 120 mph, then maybe a smaller pilot chute would be a better choice. =========== [SkyCat gear shop] -- sells Cazer ZP pilot chutes of 24" and 28" in diameter. =========== [PD article] F-111 … should be no more than 34" in diameter. … have found 30" to 32" to be adequate for most sport sized canopies (all measurements are finished dimensions). Pilot chutes made of zero porosity fabric are more sensitive to specific design criteria, and two of similar size may have widely different drag. The zero porosity pilot chutes that we have tried that work adequately are between 26" and 28" and have relatively fine mesh. =========== -[one jumper] Most use 26" ZP or 28-30" F-111. 24" fine for 150 canopy ========== [someone] I fly a Sabre 150. I got a '24 inch pilot chute (zero-P) w/ kill line at Square 1. I thought it was little small but it says right on the package that it is for 150sq ft and smaller. They also sold a 28' inch for 170sq or higher. =========== [NickNitro]: I never did buy the argument big PC = hard opening. I like to stay on the bigger side. This is what I like: Anything up to 135-150 = 28" 150-190 = 30" 210 + = 32" ==============

Good question on altitude. 1:50 alti check, about 3400' pulls soon after with a snivel 1:53-1:58 canopy inflation, fully open at end 2:02 collision some diving after collision 2:13 finishes a turn 'to head home' 3:21 landing With the timing, he should be open at a reasonable alt, although losing some extra right after the collision, and then turning around to get into his approach pattern. Still, 1 min 19 sec from collision to landing is fairly fast when one isn't diving a really small canopy. I figure altitude might have been a little tight but not terrible. For example, after collision, recovery, and an reflexive turn for home, say something like 1600'. But who knows. But in any case, as best can be told from the video, it wasn't a case of carefully looking over the canopy, doing a control check, checking alti and then deciding "I'll stay with it". It was more a case of just being glad to be OK, having a flying canopy, and heading for home.

Just curious to know why this is too snug? I wear mine this snug I'm not that experienced with articulated harnesses, so it is more my impression that a few are over tightened. I don't think such designs intend to have the MLW pulled inwards at the chest, but other than loading the chest strap some more -- maybe it isn't a big deal, as long as one feels secure in the harness and can still move easily.

It's sounding like it is just a matter of how simple terms are interpreted. A well adjusted chest strap might simultaneously be called tight (in that it isn't dangling loose) and loose (in that it isn't constricting someone's arch and movement and could be a lot tighter). For this thread in general, the point is that with gear that isn't totally ill-fitting, a chest strap that is slightly snug is sufficient to keep a jumper in the harness. One doesn't need (through fear) to reef it so tight that it constricts movement. We can probably agree on that.

In defense of loose chest straps: Huh? We're not talking about dangling loose. Or are you? A chest strap can be too snug to comfortably arch in. I certainly "test arch" when adjusting my chest strap so it isn't restricting me. What feels just right when standing straight is too tight when arching. So I sure as hell leave my chest strap loose. Or does everyone else's rigs fit better than mine? And one sees people with fully articulated rigs (including chest rings) who snug the chest strap in so much that it looks from the front like their harness is "X" shaped not "H" shaped. That's way too snug, even if the extra flex of the harness can require a little more snugness than a non-articulated harness. And there are plenty of times I've adjusted a student's chest strap looser. They might feel safer when held in like with a straight jacket, but there's a level of looseness that keeps the lift webs straight to load the harness properly, keeps the harness on the shoulders, and still gives the student movement and the ability to arch. So I can't agree with you unless you are talking about some behavior where leaving the chest strap loose enough to dangle down in an deep arc was the trend. And I don't want newbies to think that yanking that chest strap TIGHT is the right way to go.

I couldn't let that stand without a little counterattack!

Hang on, is there any evidence that the camera had anything to do with it, that he was distracted by it? If not, then the stupidity could have occurred in the same way any time over the last 30+ years. The only difference would be that we get to see a lot more of it on youtube now.

That's nice to know that the FAA has a definition of tandem passenger, but there's also the point that it wasn't that way during the many years when tandems were "experimental" in FAA eyes and part 105 must have been different. That's the point that was being made. I'll let someone else dig up the details.

Or as I've seen in one of those stories by a journalist making a jump, "My instructor was so experienced, everyone called him a tandem master!" Sounds better than Ride Operator.

I bet it is a bit of both. "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to take a non-skydiver up? Hey, if we can do that, that would be a cool way to start teaching people the sport." (We also still call traditional first jump students Students even if the vast majority of them have always been in it for just one jump. Sure they get a few hours of actual training and may have to save their own life, but most aren't in it for the long term either.)

Awesome indeed, seeing the main canopy split apart like that. That was a plot twist that I didn't expect! It shows how the stresses on a canopy can be really weird during an out of sequence opening --- although the result was extremely unusual. Maybe the canopy was also older with a weaker center cell. The reserve was cool too -- one of those nice looking multi-colour Ravens like they used to build, that people might not at first recognize as a reserve. Pretty rare to see one of the old versions with the bikini slider. That video could almost use a thread of its own.

To clue you in: Nowadays it is pretty common for people to jump off of things with BASE rigs -- towers, cliffs, paragliders, whatever, all over the world. But you might be surprised that the FAA is full of fuddy duddies who want to regulate things aerial, and aren't in it just for the fun of jumping off things like BASE jumpers are. Bummer, dude. In the US, you basically need a dual parachute single harness TSO'd rig etc to jump off an aircraft. The problem is also that the pilot is responsible for people jumping from his aircraft according to the FAA rules, so it's not just you who has to get away with it. You could come up to Canada, we don't have that kind of federal rule (just that you wouldn't be using the BASE rig at a CSPA drop zone).

Rough, late at night answer: A 3.5 link (3.5 mm diameter metal) might not even have the mouth width to go onto the canopy ring. Lark's head won't work if the kill line has a separate and small end loop (which I think is the way Cazer's are?), not sewn into the bridle. Yours could be a 3.5 mm thick regular steel link of 100 kg working load, that would be 220 lb or so, but a real Maillon would only have a kilogram marking on it, not pounds. Or it could be a stainless one, labelled "INOX" with a 220 kg working load. You don't seen plain steel 3.5's very much anway. All the Maillon rapide links have a working load with the real rated load 5 times higher. So even if it were a "220 lb" one, it would be good for 1100 lb. Maillon ratings are at http://www.peguet.fr/gb/produits/normal.html But given all that detail, I don't think it matters all that much. I've seen just about anything attaching the bag, whether a Slink, a home made soft link or just a cheap crappy hardware store link. The forces just aren't that high.

For anyone considering clicking through, that's the well known video from the Alps with the bad spot, with the cameraman not being in the main valley, but opening below mountain peak level, on the far side of the mountain wall, landing not many seconds later. I'll let someone else find the existing threads...

I certainly don't mind older gear... but it can take special attention. And, as with the link you kindly provided, newer gear isn't 'bombproof' either.

Is it correct that the rig is an OLD Atom? I thought newer Atoms have a pin cover flap that tucks into the bottom flap -- a style that became common in the mid to late 1990's (on rigs in general) to reduce the snag hazard of the reserve top flap on may rigs. But the video, e.g. at 35 or 43 sec, seems to show an "old style" pin cover flap, where the edge of the pin cover flap is completely exposed. Correct me if I'm wrong. That style is considered quite out of date nowadays when it comes to pin protection -- a type of rig where one has to be extra careful when moving around. Even the tuck-in style flaps can have problems I guess? I bet a hard push against the rig & upwards on such a pin cover flap can shift it upwards and take the pin with it. Anyone have examples of such rigs having pins popped??

Phoenix: The problem is that the article about Stu's incident suggests his face was exposed to negative G, due to the facial hemorrhaging. The difficulty is in figuring out how that happened in what is normally a positive G malfunction (unless you are upside down in your harness). The article postulates hyperextension of the neck -- head back like the MS Paint drawing. It is a bit of a stretch, so to speak, but what alternatives are there to explain the injuries? I had suggested head forward, although in the article Stu had reported being able to see the mal during the incident, which suggests head back.

Conclusion: PD Reserve Slinks are dangerous!! .... at least at Mach 2.5

I do think your suggestions would be going too far in skydiving normally. We generally aren't subject to conditions where a G loading during a spinning mal is going to cause loss of consciousness really quickly -- straining in anticipation or having a hand near the cutaway handle. We don't need to be quite that primed to cut away. Even under small canopies, we're typically better to be primed to deal with an off heading opening and conflicting traffic. And I'm saying all that as someone who has an interest in G loads, and thinks that having skydivers know about the idea of straining against G would possibly be a handy extra thing to know as advanced knowledge, for those in poorer physical condition or those getting into higher performance canopies. I'm a very hazy on my high G physiology now, but we'd normally go from low G to some higher G and have those 4-5 or whatever seconds of oxygen still available in the brain as a reserve. (Using the classic g vs. time consciousness boundary chart.) Greying out due to the blood pressure loss against the eyeballs would help give warning, just as for aerobatic pilots. So there should be a few seconds in which to react and strain. I'm not quite sure how that differs when going from a steady 5g up to 7g. Not sure if the few seconds of reserve time still applies. Or maybe it is just that if ones AGSM & breathing cycles are poor, it may be easier to miss noticing that one isn't keeping up with requirements, and after those 5 seconds, lights out. (It's been 15+ years since I read all the G load articles I could find in the Aviation,Space & Environmental Medicine journal...)

Minor comments: Protectors for the ends of clamps: I just saw neoprene dog booties in a dollar store, that looked like they might fit (although still might need to be tied on not to lose them, since they won't be a perfect fit). Clamps vs weights: A bit of both for me. I don't use weights with lead shot; I don't like the idea of possible lead contamination from all the rubbing lead. Clamps can be handy for the skinny top of round canopies, to keep the lengthwise folds all together. Weights tend to slide off (if not perfectly balanced across the canopy) when pulling the canopy towards the rig.

Shhh! Don't give away rigging secrets. Jonathan did use a winky face. I'll use two.