pchapman

I wouldn't say it is "instruction" any more than being told on an airliner how to put on the life vest or buckle up is instruction on how to fly. And it does say "passenger parachutist". Still, it is useful to see the FAR 105 quote for reference.

Fixing the link: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAANoNewRegsForTrikes_205370-1.html The practice of offering rides as introductory instructional flights (as instruction is all that is allowed commercially) has been a long standing practice in the ultralight and now LSA world. Guess it just went too far, particularly when crashes drew attention. Shouldn't matter for skydiving as you say but is an example of the student vs. ride issue in another air sport.

I'm not sure of the rules off hand but: There is that thing about maintaining AAD's according to manufacturer's specifications in AC105. But you have a point -- if the rig is open, does anything prevent a non-rigger from changing the battery? Do the manuals actually say a rigger has to do it? Probably not. Or is there something in the FARs about work on rigs that suggests that a certain level of rigger is needed? (You know those arguments we have here, about what riggers can and can't do, where it sometimes seems like a jumper can't change a closing loop, because it could affect the airworthiness of a TSO'd system...) If there is a limitation, can't the user change the battery if the AAD is pulled out of the rig? If there is no other FAR objection, it's just that the non-rigger can't close the rig back up, and the battery would have to meet the manufacturer's specs if the rigger is to close the rig.

Here are some Batwing pics taken at the DZ, showing two with different colour patterns. Photos are not super close up but they still show the weird 'shower curtain' pattern, as one local called it.

Ouch. She was one of those super-enthusiastic but struggling newbies in the sport. It is interesting to read her posts and those of other such jumpers, to hear about how they work through and hopefully overcome problems as they gain experience. Her long posts were classics! Being dead sucks.

What's the certification basis for being allowed to do so? Wow, being allowed to turn a full stow diaper into a line equalization diaper - that's what you are saying, right? Use only the locking stows I presume? You've got some really interesting info here in this thread Rob! P.S. Councilman24: I have a '65 Switlick Navy canopy in the basement, with steering vents added and a stamp saying "John Sherman steerable canopy #160349 Re-manufactured 1973 C-23b". Interesting that (like your T-10R) it is effectively called something new, rather than being called a modified Navy canopy.

Systeme International units. In other words, the world consists of more than the USA & terrorists.

Dave L: that's just about what I recall. Nice if someone could find the article again.

Let`s clarify this: We`re talking about testing the deployment of reserves that have been packed for 10-20 years with no repacks, correct? Some posters are talking about reserves that are getting repacked. (Unless zipplewrath jumped his rig with no repacks for 20 years.) Probably work just fine, like riggerrob says. There can be exceptions if there are certain materials that could deteriorate faster, such as if the reserve involves elastics on diapers. There might be a slight increase in deployment time in general, but that's the type of info we don't know much about. Reserve material doesn't take a lot of set or stick together.

Yes, it is easier to control one`s glide angle towards a target area when there's some wind. Part of it is just a matter of angles, a shallow vs. steep approach: If you have a really shallow glide angle in low wind, mis-estimating your approach angle by a small amount can leave you sailing well past the target. But if you are descending more steeply, the same size error in flight path will result in less change in where one touches down. The second part of it is how much difference brakes will make in your glide angle, in headwind vs. no wind: Lets say you have a canopy that moves 25 mph horizontally, and you can easily add some brakes to slow it to 20, with a similar rate of descent. Glide ratio starts at 3:1. (I'm oversimplifying in that there can be all sorts of different speeds and descent rates depending on the canopy, but this one example isn't totally unrealistic.) In no wind, changing to 20 mph from 25, at a similar descent rate, will only change your glide angle over the ground a moderate amount -- a 22.6 degree descent angle instead of 18.4. Just about 4 degrees difference. Then if there`s a lot of wind, say 15 mph, slowing the canopy by 5 mph will give a 5 mph ground speed instead of 10. Now for the same descent rate, the descent angle will go from 39.8 degrees to 59 degrees -- about a 19 degree difference. So you can see that small changes in your speed will have a greater effect on the flight path over the ground, when there isn`t as much ground speed to begin with.

Maybe he's the one overthinking it. There's no angle you are "supposed to " come in at. There will be an angle that you WILL descend at due to the physics of weight, parachute, and winds. But you'll never know ahead of time exactly what will happen. Still, as as student you are expected to have recall of your jump, and if you can articulate how you ended up in the right landing area, you can better analyze and repeat that. Even if in the end things become "instinctive", when learning one often has to break things down into specific tasks and knowledge. EDIT: As Shropshire says in the post after this one, don't get hung up on exact angles. Nobody cares if you descended at 34.5 degrees. All you care about is that you recognize that your descent path seems to be what you get when the winds are for example a little above light and into the moderate range. You try to predict what angle you'll descend, by looking at a wind meter and forecasts and windsock and other jumpers before the jump, and by looking at the windsock when flying your canopy close to the DZ and also by looking at your forward speed under canopy when doing wind checks, and by using the accuracy trick to estimate your glide angle when doing wind checks when lower down. All that is used to predict where you should start your final approach in terms of angle from the target area.

Interesting to hear that some guys are getting the vasectomy before having any kids. Have those guys noticed much stigma about that? While girls don't want any birth control accidents either, I find some get somewhat distrustful as soon as you say you REALLY don't want kids (and not just "not now"). There's the idea that you're a little defective or gay or something if that's your attitude. Is that worse if you are snipped or do they at least see it as a done deal so there's nothing to argue about?

Sounds like there's a lot you need to learn so a few words isn't going to clear it all up. There's no set way to talk about angles; one could talk about a flight path that's 60 degrees from the vertical or 30 from the horizontal; same thing. One might commonly talk about a descent angle, which is from the horizontal. (30 degrees in this example) The angle of one's flightpath will depend on the wind and the canopy you fly and whether you are in brakes. There are therefore no set angles to use; you'll just get a visual estimate for your own canopy over time. But very roughly, if you want to think of medium wind as 45 degrees under a typical student canopy, then think of 20 - 25 degrees descent angle in very light wind, and if the descent angle is almost 90 degrees, it is too windy for you. How do you use it? Well, if you are trying to land at a particular spot, work your way backwards from the target, back into the air: If the winds are light and you want to hit that spot, you need to be on final somewhere along a line extending up 25 degrees from that target. If you are expecting to turn final at about 300 ft, that means you'll need to be (let me calculate) about 650 ft from the target horizontally when you start that final approach. Of course in the air you don't start doing trig and repeating SOHCAHTOA to yourself -- it's all visual estimation of angles. You may end up being wrong about the wind on any particular jump, but if you have some idea of the wind, you'll be able to make some plan about the path you'll have to take to get to the target landing area.

I don't really recognize the names "The Parachute Center" or "Acampo"... ... but many of us do know it as Skydive Lodi.

Big telephoto plus cropping the many megapixel shots! From my video, it looks like an exit at 4400', main opening shock about 4000', and an open reserve by maybe 3200'. Rate of descent to the ground under the reserve averaged 18 fps. (for 155 lbs + gear) About 3 minutes under the reserve, so no fear of getting grounded for a low opening!

If you have an issue with your legs, which is an underlying problem interfering with tasks on multiple jumps... then do a coach jump that is focused entirely on leg awareness and position.

Thanks for the speed link thoughts. I had still accepted them for main canopies (inspecting for cracks in the corners and confirming the screw is not backing out), but I can see the point to replace them if possible. I like the seal thread idea. I have used a little extra seal thread on belly mount reserves before (e.g., tying each pin separately), as even a really tight container can have very low force needed to move the handle, in my limited experience. The R-3's do have the steel rivets, which is good, but I still have to replace the pins (on which the Capewell Clip rotates) -- they are the long type that leave a little play. As Poynter says, that opens up a greater possibility of the Clip spreading and not engaging the Slider properly. I have seen the long pins used but with an extra washer at one end, as an alternative if the short pins aren't available. That was on an R-3 copy and seems a reasonable alternative way to ensure there's no play. Always good to hear the 2 cents worth from people with experience with the vintage stuff.

Hi all. Thanks for the cross connector info guys; I've never seen one on my or my friends' ParaCommanders. I have made sure to have one on belly reserves. A dashboard of big alti & stopwatch would look cool atop the reserve, but yes, only for showing off on the ground. It would seem a little hazardous in the air. The reserve canopy had come out of an ancient Racer to which it had been assembled in 1983. Zero repacks until I moved it to the belly container, and packed it up in the last couple weeks. It passed all my tensile tests. Although the reserve attachment points seem to be classified as "low", I now realize I wasn't tipping back at all under the reserve. Just a nice comfy seat, no need to hold lines to avoid dangling back. That was an issue with some old rigs they say? When one 'sits' in the harness on opening, one is in a nice dearch for using a belly reserve, especially when one doesn't have the forward speed of a ram air. I don't know exactly what cutaway position you guys practiced in the old days? The old Canadian guidelines showed legs straight and together, kicked out in front. My body position after the one sided chop wasn't perfect initially (rolled somewhat to the side), but overall the seated position worked well. I could see that with legs' greater body area, and arms in to work Capewells and the reserve, one might go somewhat head down on ones' back after a chop. Was that common? Still, probably better to send reserve fabric a bit more towards the feet than up towards the shoulders if one had those snaggy Capewells. I wasn't there back in those days, but it seems that skydiving actually had gear more snaggy than a GoPro!

Thanks for remembering my pizza puke PC, Longtall. In this case though, it was a different PC, a boring all yellow one. I was getting the rig together from different sources to give to a friend in Latvia, who had gotten me Russian UT-15 and D-6 rigs to jump. There's no damage to main or reserve; I have a spare kicker plate; I just need to build a new main ripcord. I've attached a couple pics of the container, plus frame grabs from my helmet video showing the main and then the opening reserve above me. Andrew Hilton kindly found the container for me, so it is likely of UK origin. It has no markings on it, but is a nice example of a conventional sport rig that was starting to evolve away from military style rigs. It is a 2 pin rig with closing loops instead of cones. It also has a semi split saddle -- structurally there are two separate leg straps, but they are tied together with sewn webbing. I guess the reserve attachment points would be called low mounted. The reserve opening wasn't hard at all. Maybe it was masked a little by adrenalin, but it was softer than a PC at terminal. With the initial main pull 5 sec out the door and the PC catching a little air even with just one riser, I don't think I ever accelerated near terminal. Also, some of the hard opening stories of long ago applied to unreefed rounds, and this one had a diaper, avoiding canopy inflation until the lines were taut. Even with a diaper for initial control, the opening of a round reserve is messy when looking at it in slow motion. The "capture4" photo (from time code 46 and 26/60ths seconds) shows the reserve mouth in an "X" shape as some parts of the skirt fold outward before the others. I had fun writing up the CSPA Accident / Incident / Malfunction form, particularly the parts where the gear components are listed! The head of our Technical and Safety committee has been around a while so he should be able to understand.

There I was… … with a fore-and-aft rig and a streamered ParaCommander because the right main riser had released on deployment. I was testing out a vintage rig that I had just assembled for a friend. I took about a 5 second delay from the C-182 at 4500'. When I pulled, the right riser released at the R-3 release (modified Capewell), streamering the main. What I think had happened was that when I reached for the high mounted outboard facing ripcord, I was sloppy and reached and grabbed all in one motion, sweeping my hand across the harness as I did so. I must have peeled the R-3 release as I got to the ripcord. D'oh! The velcro in it is old but was holding fine so I hadn't tried to replace it. I released the other R-3, and by staying in a sitting position -- well dearched -- fell onto my back as I pulled the belly mount ripcord, trying to cover the canopy releases with the other arm. (Although it shouldn't be nearly as important with R-3's as with the much snaggier full Capewells). The MA-1 pilot chute pulled out the 26' LoPo cleanly, for a smooth opening. The cross connector did bump my chin cup but caused no other problem. I had tried to save my main ripcord, yet get it away from the belly reserve, by stuffing it between my knees before chopping, but lost it on reserve opening. Under the reserve one could watch the kicker plate tumble away, and the balled up ParaCommander drop behind me, descending much faster than I was. The LoPo was a Strong design, but built under license in 1977 by the short lived M+S company of Montreal. The canopy used one of the old 2 grommet Strong line equalization diapers. With light winds I was able to fly & drift back to the DZ. I should have rolled out the landing but stood it up for the small crowd, but in so doing pretty much compressing all the way down, butt to heels, causing a little ankle sprain. I'm 155 lbs so the descent rate isn't bad under a round reserve. I hadn't previously had the chance to deploy a belly mount reserve, so going those reserve procedures had some of the excitement of a novice having his first mal. All in good fun. (Plus I had been envious of Beatnik, who used his bellymount reserve a few years back when another jumper spiralled into his canopy. Not many sport jumpers get to use a bellymount these days.) The timing on my helmet video shows the cutaway at 8 seconds after first seeing the main -- which included time to identify it clearly as a mal with one riser off, at 4 seconds saying to the video that I'd have to go to the reserve, stowing the main ripcord, and putting my left hand on the remaining R-3. The reserve pull came a second later, and full reserve another 3 seconds later. Seems like decent timing. I have attached a few of the stills taken from the ground, showing the reserve deployment and then flying the reserve.

A local guy (southern Ontario) flies a smaller one. Mind you, he's back in the sport after a couple years of rehab due to serious injuries. He was always able to put on a good show with ultra low diving turns before landing, because of the canopy's short recovery arc. Until one day he got a bit casual and hooked too low...

Depends on the cost and type of video. Outside video, with a separate cameraflyer filming the whole dive, will be expensive, and priced towards the idea of a keepsake of your first (etc.) AFF jump. On the other hand, "inside" video, such as taken with a Sony camera or GoPro (edit: yeah, snag alert!) mounted on one of your instructors' helmets, still has a lot of training value and may be provided free for viewing (or copying) depending on the DZ and instructors' equipment.

1) Analog(ue) vs digital: I'm not so sure the studies of analog vs digital, that say analog is better, really apply that much here. There are times when one is better, one where the other is better, depending on the accuracy and time involved. There are so many variables. Plus, analog altis make it hard to see distinctions of a couple hundred feet. So an analog on the wrist is pretty tough to use IF one is trying to teach students about altitudes like 300 or 600 ft for turns. I think that kind of detail may be going too far, but at least it is a starting point for them to learn circuits. Parachute circuits are largely about fitting in with other traffic, and managing one's landing spot, not about exact altitudes. In many things that people do, we can accept some "by the numbers" actions from a student, that later get adjusted in more complex ways. 2) Re: Telling a student to do their turns within a DZ's property One comment was that "You're teaching them how to land and at ONE DZ." Quite right. And that's fine, as long as it is just a tool early on during their time as a student, to be moved away from later. That's where nice big overhead photos of the DZ are useful, as students have little idea how big typical circuits might be. 3) It has been said an audible under canopy can be a distraction for a student. Yet radios for students aren't considered a distraction, even if radio calls are also some extra input to process. Both can add useful information at important times. (Radios can of course be misused too, and leave a student unable to plan their own circuit.) 4) With the new use of audibles with altitude beeps under canopy, one has to match that with the appropriate teaching, whatever that may be. That's where students have to learn principles of circuits, where the beeps are a reminder, not an order to crank 90 degree turns wherever they are. So the new technology could be used well, or it could be used poorly. I don't know the best way to use audibles under canopy, but it is worth somebody learning to do so. 5) Questions: I am curious how you deal with the problem of over-reliance on the beeps. A a turn to final may need to done at a given time, according to position and winds, even if the 300 ft beep (or whatever) has not gone off yet . How do you integrate radio instruction with the beeps? The instructor won't know when to turn the student unless they've got a lot of experience. [Edit: answered already by the time this got posted - no radios at that dz. That is a big change in how to look at things -- an audible seems like much less of a waste if there isn't someone on radio demonstrating a good pattern through his commands.] How long are the audibles used? (How many jumps, or to some sort of Solo level some time after AFF, or?) What do the students say about it, after they've finished using the audibles?

Has the owner known all along? Some riggers might just have gone along with it -- on the basis of not being able to prove that the reserve should be grounded -- even if it is totally non standard, not in any normally accepted configuration. And they would have thought that if the owner is OK with that, fine. Reserves get water stained, or round reserves got dirty all the time on the gore that rubbed against the backpad. I'm not condoning using markers on reserves at all; just looking at explanations for why it kept getting packed. Bizarre: who would every think of marking a reserve like that?

To add to that: Compared to a standard 182 exit, that sounds right. But compared to a rear door 206 exit with a similar sitting on the edge position, maybe not that much worse. If so, probably from extra airspeed while trying to sit properly in the door. But I'm not sure since I haven't watched many of those type of exits on 206's and Caravans. (and they were static line not IAD).