pchapman

Which club is that? For Europe, I only knew of the vintage weekend events at Teuge. Edit: as for landing Dactyl's softly, that video shows it being done with a low 270 hook. Kudos to Bobby, but I'm no where ready to do that with my Dactyl. I just pound in.

Just some brief comments without the fine tuning needed for good teaching technique: Prior to turning final: If one can't do much on final but fly straight at normal speed (eg, busy modern dz), you have to adjust things before final. So then it is a matter of at what point to turn base or turn final. Or how one turns base and final: make the turns slowly or cut the corner, rounding out base and final. Or adjust the base and final vertically by flatter turns vs. cranking into a steeper diving turn to lose altitude. On final: As you know, a lot of moving around on final is not desired in modern style big DZ situations. But if it is ok to do turns, it doesn't have to be sashays with deep, steep swinging. It can also be slow braked turns. Don't get into too deep brakes though when turning or in turbulence. Using brakes on final will affect glide ratio over the ground but the exact effects depend on the canopy type and headwind so isn't easy to describe in full detail. But with typical medium winds, and a canopy used by novices (not super ground hungry), one could use 1/4 brakes for the start of the approach, going into more or less brake for steeper or shallower flight. The shorter one makes the base and final, the more accurate one will be. That has to be traded off with expectations of how big the circuit should be (if there is other traffic) and with safety (too little time for a novice - don't take my idea too far). For example, if you turn final at 800 ft and have estimated one's glide angle wrongly, you'll end up four times further from the target than if you turn final at 200 ft and make the same error in glide angle. (This is before any corrective measures one might take to fix the error, which may be limited.) Trying to land near a target is almost best done outside of the main landing area, in some place where one can indulge in accuracy techniques. In the busy modern DZ situation, landing is about doing so anywhere along a landing strip while not interfering with other traffic in the air. It isn't about landing accurately near one point along the landing strip.

Thanks, I forgot that only the very old Strong line equalization diapers are 2 stow (2 bight), and that anything newer is 3 stow. Not to be confused with full stow 3 bight diapers. So, yes, I agree with others that getting the lines out of the pack tray and onto a full stow diaper is so much nicer, for everything except bulk distribution.

I'm a little lost. You are comparing a full stow 3 bight diaper to a 2 bight line equalization diaper, lines in the pack tray??

I'm late to this argument but much of it seems to be about terminology. "Two stage flare" isn't perfect but it encapsulates major parts of the flare process. I don't want to have to talk to novice jumpers about the "infinite stage fully dynamic continually feedback adjusted flare", where the answer on how to do it is to flare as needed to achieve the slowest possible touchdown. Theoretically great, but useless providing a descriptive process. While we want to make it clear to people that the flare process isn't to be done blindly -- except to some degree when first learning it, due to lack of ability to adequately assess & react to the situation -- breaking it down into 2 major stages, perhaps with some minor additional stages within that, is still a reasonable way of doing things. The two stages are the pullout and the level-off. One could add a substage or a 3rd stage, for example, when talking about the finishing of the flare at the end. Or a substage about a gradual let down as a later part of the generally levelled-off part. Or other things. So there are plenty of details to talk & argue about. But saying "two stage" does not mean a blind set of actions without using feedback from what is happening.

A few comments on my own thread: One poster asked about altitudes and outs. Outs are OK at that DZ. (VR 360 reserves actually fly and land quite nicely too.) The lower main opening shouldn't have prevented a safe cutaway, but shortened the time to make a decision, which has the potential to add time pressure. If one tried to fix the tension knot (good), then took time to evaluate the canopy's controllability, and decided to keep the canopy, one might soon feel pretty low and not want to re-evaluate the decision to stay with the canopy. Reserves aren't perfect but if we weren't supposed to trust them we wouldn't have packers working at full speed packing mains. As for the lady letting her legs down, they were down as far as seen in the "on approach" photo. Upper legs horizontal (good), lower legs straight down, I think using hands on grippers to help keep legs up. Not perfect but reasonable for an older person. The landing itself wasn't that rough, but still there was forward speed plus some descent rate, so they dug in, and flipped forward. One could see from brake positions on approach that he wasn't going to get much flare out of it. Probably still OK if everyone involved were young. The landing actually seemed pretty decent if one were only thinking about all the distortion seen in the canopy. I'm not one to automatically call for pulling ratings, burning at the stake, etc., because we all screw up sometimes. The guy honestly thought he could land it. But I think it was a bad decision, even before knowing the outcome. I'm still making the same point I did at the start: 1) The photos are food for thought (whether or not we all have different ideas & conclusions) 2) A tandem instructor has to consider the passenger. 3) Any skydiver has to consider that if dealing with a minor mal, it can be hard up high to tell just how well you can slow it down and plane it out for landing.

So according to Flock U.: (I just looked it up as I didn't know who the guy is.)

While it may have been available for a while, I just noticed how SSK has a new big orange warning poster near the top of their Cypres-USA website. Some of it is standard disclaimer material about how skydiving is a high risk activity and that their product is a backup device. What I find interesting are apparently new parts like this: This is in line with the recent concern in our sport about why some people are not being saved when their AAD fires, to which we don't have a lot of really clear answers, even if various accusations are thrown around. Although disclaimers always try to reduce potential responsibility on the part of companies, they are normal in skydiving and this one does seem to express what is now regarded as a reality in skydiving. (I wonder how that Brooke Baum lawsuit is going...) Maybe we'll go this route: AOD --> AAD --> ALCD (Automatic Loop Cutter Device)

So that demonstrates that 'build your own' instructions for loops exist, invalidating the argument that only the factory is able to produce such things. (...Whether or not any particular person can build any particular item to the required degree of accuracy.) However, in this case the pdf instructions are for a military Sigma-style container, that uses a 'pulley closing loop' different from our civvy Sigmas ( 7.5" not 8.5"). Their loop system: http://www.cpsworld.com/tech_pdfs/RWS/Closing_instructions_TS14pulley%20closing_loop.pdf So, where are the civilian Sigma loop instructions?

This is a pretty basic lesson when it comes to a "minor" malfunction, but I'll make it anyway since I've got photos. Just because a canopy is controllable while up high, and it seems to flare - giving you that 'pulling up' feeling - doesn't mean it is actually smart to land it. Especially if the ground winds are weak, you are doing a tandem with a paying customer, and the customer is elderly. (And she's another jumper's mom.) In this case, the instructor couldn't plane out fully on landing, hitting with some forward speed and a little descent rate, would have been OK for a healthy young solo jumper but which caught the leg of the student, who broke her femur and ankle. Two camera flyers (for later tandems on the same load), including myself, had flown by the tandem to gawk in wonder at the clearly visible problem. (And given that I opened at 3500' on my Protrack and flew just over the tandem 1 min 40 sec later, that suggests a lowish pull too...) The instructor involved thought he had the canopy under control without too much opposite toggle, and had landed a tandem with a tension knot at another DZ last year. (For some reason the cops this year are really picky. They came in addition to two ambulances. The gear had to be left in the field until some forensics guy came to inspect it and release it back to the DZ. I know everything gets confiscated at DZ's if there's a fatality, but I didn't expect that kind of analysis for just a rare injury & ambulance call.) Canopy: Sigma II 370, Vectran lines. Looks like a stabilizer slider stop caught on an A line 3 cells over. (So it wasn't actually a line vs. line tension knot. Things related to lines were still caught due to tension, so I hope "tension knot" is still a reasonable category to put this under?)

I like the Cyrillic script Para-Commander t-shirt!

There have been various threads here on dz over the years about options for really big guys. Basically TKHayes is right, it is impossible (?) to find any normal gear (harness and reserve) that is certified to your weight plus the weight of the gear itself. As squeak suggested, that leaves military style equipment (such as for a soldier plus extra equipment) and tandem gear custom modified for student use. Which is all very, very rare. Some of the other threads on the subject do mention the occasional DZ that has had such gear. So search for those threads too. I can't say you can't jump, but it may not be easy to find a place that's set up to take you.

No, Mexico was never part of the USA.

Interesting! It's like being back to a novice skydiver learning to maneuver. You're no longer just "taping" legs together above the knees and at the ankles, but using a single strap above the knees, that leaves a space between the legs. You tend to be dearched at the hips. So apparently that is a sort of neutral position and even belly to earth without muscle tone, wind pressure doesn't move the legs back. So it is a very stable point as far as inherent muscle lengths or whatever goes. I guess you can't work any lower back muscles that might help arching at the hips, although I'm not sure of what all muscles contribute.

Cool. The Stukas also had something like that, where one could get a warning light at a pre set altitude during a dive. That's an earlier plane than the Fury so would have had the feature earlier -- and who knows when someone first invented it for dive bombers. The online history of the Stuka devices is a little unclear. Some sources make it sound like it also triggered an automatic 6 g pullout (with manual override available), others say that was on late models only, and others say that that feature was in an optional module on Ju 88's only, not the Ju 87 Stuka. One has to dig a little deeper than wikipedia to make the truth clear. Not quite a full swoop computer but it was a start.

Yes!! Propacks start over the shoulder and end up on the ground in a narrow pile. Flatpacks start on the ground, canopy laying spread out on its side, and end up on the ground in a narrow pile. They look very much the same at that point, although the internal folding is different. BASE packs are pro-packs, reserves are usually propacks, indeed most canopies are propacked these days. But flat packing is a tool that is still handy for things like large F-111 canopies.

While this is a brand new bulletin, SB AMMO050811, it is in effect the 5th version of the original cutter bulletin AMMO050910. To try to keep the story straight, here's a quick chronology of the cutter bulletins, to the best of my knowledge, modified from something I just wrote in another thread: In version 1 of the recall bulletin (SB AMMO050910, a.k.a. AMMO050910/1) in Apri '10 only a particular 2007 batch of cutters were recalled. In version 2 (... /2) in Sept '10 all the early cutters, Aug '07 or earlier, had to replaced by the end of the year at the latest. In version 3 in Dec '10 the recall timing was extended so it didn't have to be done until the first repack after 31 March 2011. In version 4 in April '11, the rules changed to a) replacement at next repack if cutter above PC b) no need for replacement if below the PC. In that version 4, Aviacom wrote that due to "extensive tests", those early (Aug 07 or earlier) cutters "have shown no lack of performance." Thus Aviacom was still implying that absolutely nothing was wrong with their cutters. And now in the brand new bulletin, SB AMMO050811, all the old style cutters are to be replaced before the next jump.

A "recalled cutter"? Yes, absolutely, in some sense. But no, not in another. Yes indeed in the sense that it was of the early type of cutter that is in the recall. ... whether or not that particular cutter in that particular rig would be recalled at that particular time. In version 1 of the recall bulletin (SB AMMO050910/1) it might have been recalled, as only a particular 2007 batch was involved. (The Gold Coast report doesn't say exactly when the cutter was built.) In version 2 (... /2) in Sept '10 the cutter was in the recall and had to be replaced by the end of the year at the latest. (If in use of course.) In version 3 in Dec '10 the recall timing was extended to the first repack after 31 March 2011. That's the wait described in the original Gold Coast report. In version 4 in April '11, the rules changed to a) replacement at next repack if cutter above PC b) no need for replacement if below the PC. In that case, the particular cutter in that particular rig was no longer recalled. (And the cutter was banned in the Dolphin by Altico for only a few days in spring until they rescinded their bulletin.) And in that version 4, Aviacom writes that due to "extensive tests", those early (pre-Aug 07) cutters "have shown no lack of performance." Thus Aviacom is still implying that absolutely nothing is wrong with their cutters. EDIT: Funny, at the same time as I wrote this, Aviacom's brand new bulletin, SB AMMO050811 , got published on dz.com. It bans all of the old cutters immediately before the next jump. Doesn't matter if you have a below the pilot chute cutter or not.

Pioneer MC-3 It used to be on Pioneer's web site until a couple years ago, or I've somehow missed it. One cached copy of their small web page on it can be found through the waybackmachine: http://web.archive.org/web/20061029002659/http://www.pioneeraero.com//2-5_fre_fal.htm

I think there are a few threads out there already about what to do with hardware! There are plenty of other jumpers in that club. (A more descriptive thread title would help if that's the main question asked.) FWIW, I once had a broken ankle. Took the hardware out a year later as it did occasionally bug me, the metal just under the skin rubbing up against things like hiking boots. Not a big deal but it was nicer once it was out.

I think there was a similar recent argument about pilot chutes in tow. I mean, when is it really "in tow" and not just "a hesitation"? If it tows for 2 seconds? Four? Until the reserve is opened? Do you have to wait for impact to be sure? We are allowed to use more than a couple words to describe situations. So I might say something was a "bag lock" in terms of what the jumper dealt with, even if from a rigging standpoint the cause was "pilot chute not cocked". Or there could be a situation where one could say "in the end it wasn't much of a bag lock - just a temporary bag lock - because it cleared after a couple seconds". OK, if we have to check off a pre-defined category on a form we'll perhaps argue about how to pick the nearest best choice. To avoid arguments on dz.com, any jumper who has a so-called bag lock or pilot chute in tow, should wait at least 10 seconds to confirm it before taking action.

I generally agree with your overall sentiment. There are couple good reasons to tighten the MLW in the aircraft that I can think of: - special case like a big, tall student in a cramped C-182, making it easier to reach the hooks for hookup, then cranking the MLW to bring the hooks forward closer to the desired location for the jump - yeah, fat people, even when the leg straps seem tight, they'll still sink down lower in the harness on opening Just as students can get all worried about the harness feeling loose when they are sitting down, instructors can get a little worried too. Legs straps can loosen up a little if the student has been waiting on the ground a while, so I can at least understand a little extra tightening (not 'to the max'), even if it may not be needed in a particular case. There is an expectation these days for instructors to not let students be loose in the harness, so some will err on the side of over tight than over loose. Perhaps a student who can't arch well is still better off than one slumped down, loose in the harness, chest strap at their chin after opening.

The exchange rate was different then...

You made me realize, the guy needs a link to the thread about the special ops Marcinko guy. Marcinko knows all about weird (but imaginary) things that can happen to canopies!

Whatever other DZ issues might be, usually DZ's don't operate like nuclear weapons stockpiles. Rigs sit on racks and there's an assumption nobody has toyed with them. They may get locked up at night. Occasionally they may be in a separate gear room that only staff are supposed to access, but it isn't a secure facility normally. DZ's may well have a tracking system for pack jobs (main canopy), so if something goes wrong, they can check with the packer to see if there was an issue. If a rig is packed, then it is packed. The quality of the pack job, though, you never know. (I don't know if pack job tracking is any different in the UK; things there are sometimes more formal than in the US/Can.) (Field packed mains with daisy chained lines, being put back in service, only helped kill a dumb student or two back in the 1960s. One doesn't field pack like that nowadays so it isn't an issue.) I know one DZ that leaves rental gear unpacked. Then every renter is responsible for the pack job, and can't complain they had a hard opening or lost the canopy because of someone else's pack job. But that's the exception. If nobody checks your leg straps, even if that is pretty sloppy on the part of instructors, mention it! People aren't perfect and you have to speak up because in not that many more jumps you'll be expected to be able to keep yourself alive. An instructor might think by jump 4 you know enough to at least tighten your straps properly. But the instructors still have some responsibility at that stage to keep you safe, and should be doing a full gear check. In the UK I thought every jumper is supposed to get a gear check before boarding, student or not. A little boat rocking can be good. (But if you do it only here on dz, you tend to get a lot of criticism!)