pchapman

Not necessarily anything. That's my point too.

It would be interesting to look at the European EN966 standard, for air sports helmets. The European paragliding community seems to do OK with having such a standard. Paragliding across the market of Europe is probably bigger than say skydiving in North America. Still, it isn't on the order of skiing or biking, so the smaller user base to cover certification costs is more comparable. Paragliding helmets at a glance seem little more expensive than skydiving helmets, but it's hard to compare over the full range of sophistication. The cheapest European paragliding helmets do look more expensive than the cheapest skydiving ones -- more like $180 minimum. I wonder what skydivers in Europe are using. As far as I know, despite generally more regulation there, I don't hear of jumpers being forced to use non-skydiving helmets. A couple sources I've seen, not necessarily authoritative, suggest that the EN966 is a tougher standard than cycle & ski helmet certifications. (E.g., one respected helmet builder & reseller admitted they failed to get EN966 on a previously certified skiing helmet, EN1077, that they had expected would pass the EN966 tests.) Both cheap and expensive paragliding helmets do tend to use EPS, polystyrene foam, for their liners -- the hard Styrofoam style stuff. Good for high impact protection, not quite as good for daily comfort. Much as I like the good old ProTec we are used to (which nowadays has 2 layers of foam with different springiness, both of which spring back) those have no certification. That's their 'skate' helmet. Their 'bike' or 'ski' helmets have other foams. It may have their SXP (trade name for their expanded polypropylene) multi impact foam -- I think it is still a 'hard' foam. Or it will have the traditonal EPS. They meet certifications like the EN 1077 for skiing or the California biking CPSC standard. So the traditional Protec doesn't match cycling helmets etc for hard impact protection, but should be good for lighter impacts where the softer foam will allow more of the potential deceleration distance to be used without bottoming out. Not sure about rebound issues though. Still better than the "shell with comfort padding only" found in some skydiving helmets. I'm not advocating changing our whole system of non-regulation. But paragliding is a good sport to look at if considering helmet certification standards.

Aside to Zephyr: To stay on topic, I made a new post about the student gear choice at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4111336;.

I got asked in another thread, which I didn't want to derail, why my DZO picked Aerodyne for new student & rental rigs. It seemed reasonable to start a thread on choices of student gear, if anyone cares. I'm not a particular fan of Aerodyne, but don't have anything against them either. Their rigs just aren't as common around here and they don't have canopies at the top end of the sport, winning swoop meets. My DZO wanted some new student & rental rigs (but not totally replacing the old ones), and realized that Aerodyne can offer a complete solution: reserve, rig, main canopy. I don't know but I think the price was a little better not being one of the top players. Aerodyne also offers the Skyhook which only a few can. Swinging the deal at the end was that Aerodyne was also more willing than some to make DZ-specific modifications to the gear.

I think but can't confirm that both can have the Skyhook. The DZ I'm at, has bought a bunch of new Icons for student rigs and rental rigs, and all will have Skyhooks. (Hard to find anything at all about the Skyhook on Aerodyne's site.)

A pencil whipping story of mine: It isn't a big deal, but nowadays I made sure to always write the day of the month with two digits, e.g., "03 May" not "3 May". One time before that, a rig came back to me where my last repack of the 3rd of some month had mysteriously become the 23rd of the month on the card. I told the jumper that I was charging him an extra $30 that repack as a fine. He asked where the fine money would go, such as to the CSPA. No, I told him, I just made it up, and the money was going to my personal beer fund. He shut up & paid up, and we've stayed on good terms since, without problems. Sometimes crime does pay... for someone.

Just think of us all here on dz.com as your peer reviewers, providing the valuable service of prompt, honest feedback.

B.S. I bet a lot of people realize that news reports are preliminary, and it takes time for nuanced details to make their way accurately over to us. One could be "killed in a firefight" and "used as a shield" if one were totally unarmed and just happened to run infront of someone armed while going for cover. You'd still be in a firefight in the broader sense of the idea, even if not actively firing a weapon.

I looked it up just because I'm interested in old parachutes and paragliders. Parachutes de France is the company, Surfair is the model. It shows up as an old parachute design from '89 or before, in Poynter's manual (an older manual on parachute rigging): http://books.google.com/books?id=2PopFBjLZV8C&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=parachutes+de+france+surfair&source=bl&ots=ldmVycxZ7V&sig=6uRWDx_xQK5-DyqVJZFopPrJG_c&hl=en&ei=bQa_Tf60MsnYgQfUkczaBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=parachutes%20de%20france%20surfair&f=false It also shows up in the big paragliding wing (canopy) database at Para2000, first on the market in 1985: http://www.para2000.org/wings/parachutesdef/surfair.html Basically it appeared at the very very start of the sport of paragliding, and as such was basically a parachute that was also sold for paragliding, before the sports diverged. One can see in your photo that the harness is an early paragliding harness. Because of that and other reasons (eg, no pilot chute system) the canopy seems to have been originally sold for paragliding not skydiving. Towing a ram-air canopy (a wing style parachute) behind a boat is generally seen to be a dangerous thing to do. Towing ram air canopies aloft (parascending) has been a legitimate thing to do, but requires specialized knowledge to conduct such activities safely. Basically its current value is a waiver signed by whomever you give it to, not to sue you if they hurt themselves with it.

Opinions differ a lot on letting them help flare a lot or not. It depends a lot on the canopy too -- eg, Sigmas are heavy on the toggles so student participation can be nice. Some others are lighter on the toggles, so a hard flare by a student is more likely to cause a problem.

I have heard from someone in the industry that both Mirage and Airtec are aware of the issue and have been talking about it. I don't expect instant solutions but it's better than nothing.

By which he means the following -- these are the bulletin dates I read: PIA Technical Committee March 21 Rigging Innovations March 21 UPT March 22 Parachutes Australia March 22 Sunpath March 22 Parachute Systems March 23 Altico March 24 Mirage March 24 Aerodyne March 25 Strong March 29 People might interpret that as a) collusion, or b) jumping on the bandwagon as a legal move after an industry body highlighted Argus dangers (even though the PIA letter clearly stated that each company should make its own mind up). If it were collusion, it would be pretty bumbling, issuing the PIA press release first...

What the f ? Couldn't find my own post until I realized you crossposted. That's not cricket, old boy. ========= So I'll repeat what I accidentally posted in your Events + Places to jump thread: You mentioned in your "advertisement" that you had sport equipment. From later posts it sounds like the canopies are really military -- a bit sneaky to call it sport equipment and then laugh at people who say they don't know of non-tandem sport equipment for those weights. Still, it is nice to hear about big boy rigs, as that's a topic that comes up from time to time and they are rare. The Tactical Reserve is one of those CPS products, which would mean PD for the canopy. You haven't mentioned the container. Looks like a Vector Sigma rig, but you say you aren't using modified tandem equipment. So how about coughing up some more detail on it? Is it an off the shelf military rig, in 'civilian' colors? And what is its certification basis? With those weights, it can't be just another "Wonderhog" Vector 3? Or does it fall under the Sigma drop tests? (In which case it is modified tandem gear, although built that way at the factory.) Or is it based on some other TSO for the military? Lets see a photo of the front of it too. How are the prices? Is the military stuff priced in the range of tandem equipment (which companies know are being used to earn big bucks by DZ's, and priced accordingly), or even higher? You brought up the subject of your cool big boy rig, so we'll ask some questions!

I hear that said all the time and I think it obfuscates the situation. God yes!! That set of three rules is so confusing. 1. It isn't a decision tree to follow, so it is useless in that way. 2. One could list any number of less important things to do and not change the meaning. (eg., "4. Admire pretty clouds, 5. Flail wildly.") 3. Rule #1 is actually wrong unless one prefaces the list with the condition that these apply only once one has reached planned pull altitude. 4. Otherwise rule #2 is actually more important, as one isn't normally supposed to pull far above planned pull altitude. 5. After reaching the planned pull altitude, rules #2 and #3 can never apply anyway, as one has passed the correct altitude. 6. The list states that pulling is more important than pulling at the right altitude, therefore, pulling low is OK!! There are so many things wrong with that stupid old list. Even if there is some truth to be pulled from it, it's a massively flawed teaching aid.

(Not directed at Rhys, just a general reply) Aviacom / Argus has a bit of a problem now that it has reminded people that one must always follow the instructions in the manual to lubricate the closing loop, and that lubricating the loop is part of what is required to cut the loop properly. (This isn't directly on the 'ban list' topic, but this thread has become the one active Argus thread instead of half a dozen of them earlier.) The latest version of their cutter bulletin, SB AMMO050910/4 states that "[...] SILICONIZING [...] IS IMPORTANT TO ASSURE A CLEAN CUT". The manual says that the silicon is to be applied on the part of the loop that passes through flap grommets. Riggers have long known that lubricating the loop is good, but Airtec for example has long maintained that it is not necessary to improve the cut of the loop. It is only there to reduce wear on the loop and let the loop slide more freely between grommets when the loop is cut. Aviacom's insistence that silicon is mandatory to help get a good cut, suggests that their AAD shouldn't be used in rigs like the Racer, Reflex, or Teardrop, which don't lubricate their adjustable loops. And unless one lubricates a loop right down by the washer (and not just up by the flap grommets as the manual indicates), then the loop will not be lubricated around the pack tray mounted cutter such as on a Javelin or Wings. Common practice is not to lubricate loops near the washer, although I don't know whether that could actually wick into the knot and promote slippage. Aviacom has never banned their AAD from these rigs. So Aviacom has a contradiction in their instructions, basically admitting their cutter isn't any good on certain types of rigs.

I'll jump in again with more of the old school progression, back when you might jump anything if you had already put a couple jumps on something a bit bigger. Previously I mentioned how the canopies I owned went 265 --> 135 --> 88. But the initial downsizing jumps I made were like this: 180 jumps on F-111 canopies of 200 ft or more, mostly 265. Then 5 jumps on a zero-p 160 to get the hang of the speed and concept of planing out. My logbook shows I thought the landings were easy enough to make work (although they were stressful), but I did roll one out as soon as the wind dropped. (Oh yeah, I had a video camera strapped to my leg on the 3rd of those jumps, and put myself into fast spiralling line twists below 1500' when I decided to do one more set of quick toggle turns before getting to safety altitude to stop playing around. I was very close to pulling both handles had I not kicked out quickly.) After those jumps it was 4 jumps Sabre 135, 2 jumps Sabre 120, then after a few more big canopy jumps, then to a Jonathan 92 on a hot summer day with light winds at jump 205 (the smallest production canopy other than the Nova 88 at the time I think). On the first couple jumps on that canopy, high hop and pops, I was flaring over a log fence or bushes to land, as I had been doing so much testing under canopy (with tape recorder, wind speed indicator, and rate of descent indicator) that I just made it back to the DZ property. Jeez, until checking my logbooks I had forgotten I had all that crap with me from the start. Even back then in the mid 1990s, playing test pilot while aggressively downsizing wasn't the norm.

Normally the entire piece of woven fabric line is known as the closing loop, but you must be talking about the eye in the closing loop. (Which is a loop in a generic sense.) There's no reason for the eye to stretch out any more than the whole closing loop, only some small percentage after the initial tensioning. Is the inner part of the finger trapped line not contained by the closing loop's knot, and slowly slipping? Or is it a slippery spectra closing loop that is slipping a single overhand knot over time? Something's not right if you are getting that much apparent stretch!

One can also distinguish between one's regular gear and the stuff one borrowed for a short time to learn to downsize. It can make the "jumped" vs. "owned" lists rather different. After jumping student Mantas etc, canopies I owned: Titan (265) -- for 350 jumps before: At 590 jumps bought Sabre 135 -- for 35 jumps before: At 775 jumps bought FX 88 at 1.9 WL But when it came to what was jumped (rather than owned), there were things like: Sabre 135 at 190 jumps Jonathan 92 at 205 jumps FX 88 at 550 jumps Still there were only 90 jumps on canopies over 1.2 wing loading before jumping the FX 88. So during the early seasons I might fly the 265 most of the time and borrow a Jedei 120 for a bit of fun in between. "Downsizing progression" back then basically consisted of two or three jumps on a canopy, to get the hang of the extra speed and more demanding flare, before going down a couple sizes, whether or not changing from a square to elliptical or to a crossbraced canopy. (Edited to better described the jumped vs. owned issue.)

Microsoft has add-ins for older Excel, Word etc to convert and open the newer formats (docx, xlsx) in the pre-2007 versions of their software. So that's another route one can take.

I didn't check but I may have been the only one bringing up the TSO issue. After all, there are other certifications out there too, such as JTSO's, and some older French certifications, so I don't know what is needed in different countries in Europe or around the world. It just happens that in Canada, where I am, that no TSO at all is necessary except for demo jumps. (Canada has been 180 days for about a decade now.)

To add to what MJOSparky wrote, the approach I take with this rule is to destroy your rig's TSO if you live in a place where it doesn't matter. For example, Rigging Innovation writes this about the big orange TSO warning label on their rigs: So if you mess up your rig's warning label, and that's legal in your country, you can be jumping a non TSO'd rig and follow your own country's rules when visiting the US and spending money there. (It has however still been debated whether the rule applies to components that were originally TSO'd, or are currently in approved TSO configuration, but the latter interpretation is a reasonable one.)

I'm thinking: Yes with legs split they can't support each other, but that position would be used for only certain slides. One leg forward and one leg under is more for a good-conditions slide, where you expect to slide along reasonably smooth grass, including cases where you even expect to remain standing at the end of the slide. Or, you think one leg in front is enough, and one leg under is there to guard against a possible drop on your ass due to turbulence or a poor flaring canopy or whatever. For a more of an emergency conditions slide, as long as you don't expect to drop down on your spine, both legs would be out in front. If you do expect both a lot of descent rate and forward speed, there's no easy answer, but you'd rather keep feet underneath against the descent rate to protect your spine, and take what comes in the high speed tumble. Where to use the various versions of landing techniques all depends on how much vertical speed and horizontal speed one expects to arrive with (and smoothness of the terrain). To some degree one landing can transform into another. (Eg, sliding in rougher terrain but body kept high, so if the feet do dig in, you tumble into a PLF roll instead of crumpling up against the obstacle catching your feet). But to some degree, you just have to make a choice ahead of time as to what type of landing conditions to expect and how to position yourself.

Presumably they are unrelated to Skydive America Palm Beach, who some will remember as being run by someone who spent lavishly and was very popular for a while. But he massively defrauded his investors, and maybe even went to jail for that fraud. That's how I recall it, whether exactly right or not. Or it could be totally unrelated, trying to pick a cool name. Then it would just be unfortunate that the owners picked a name that would breed suspicion by jumpers who have been around since the 1990s. So whose DZ is this? Is it Rich Grimm's? He's well known, very experienced, and popular for having organized skydiving adventures AFAIK. It's been years since I met him. But that was supposed to be Tsunami Skydivers? Or is Skydive America one of those fake Skyride dropzones that doesn't exist other than as a web site?

Don't worry about the implied criticism too much. It's just the way it is here, that all sorts of related issues are brought up and questioned, and alternative ideas explored, rather than dealing with one very specific question one is asking about. Your original question was a good one, even if a bit wordy, one of those issues that has been in the back of my mind because I don't have a good answer for it. I've seen someone write how by the time he thought, "I'm low, go for reserve!", his right hand had already dumped the main. Maybe try the occasional jump where, altitude & traffic etc. permitting, you actually put a hand onto your reserve handle first? Maybe when not deploying too high, to give a slightly more realistic sight picture. Or throw in a quick back loop or roll first to help give a slightly more sudden view, as if suddenly looking down to find oneself low. This could be a good little emergency procedures practice for most people. Gotta try it myself too. (If someone is a habitual high puller, they can take it lower occasionally to get used to the lower altitude, even if they don't want it to be an everyday thing. ) But then, as you question, how often does one need to do this to build it into one's instinctive procedures? Is once a season enough? Once per 50 jumps? Who knows. It might not have to be very often at all, just that it is something one has actually done a few times to make it more than totally un-natural. When done occasionally, it may then also stick in the back of the mind as an option that comes to mind more easily when time is tight. EDIT: Nigel99 -- That 1000m vs. 1000ft incident is a great tale! Worthy of the 'stupid things I have done' or 'scary stories from the old days' threads. Boomslang -- Give nwflyer a break. That last bit of hers that you quoted does relate to the thread. Like you and I, she also hopes she'd go to her reserve quickly when low, but we all have that nagging doubt we might toss the main before moving our left hand.

Yay! Passing that level should also improve the ratio of Jumps to Posts.