pchapman

Members
  • Content

    5,943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by pchapman

  1. Re: 30-40 hr course "Alright class, I'll show you how to hold your knitting needles, but first please pick up a handful of silkworms from the bucket up front."
  2. Good question. The month and year of manufacture are listed on the cutter. On some the lettering is a little faint. I haven't looked at a recent cutter to see if there's any change to the info. Airtec's statements are actually a little vague about cutters. One would expect that since cutters haven't changed, and Cypres 2's are good for 12.5 yrs, cutters are good for the same. ("Cutters haven't changed": One exception is that the plug seal isn't watertight if using a Cypres 1 cutter on a Cypres 2.) But the statements are vaguer: Cypres News Nov 06: The Cypres 2 manual doesn't explicitly address it as far as I can tell, other than saying not to use an expired cutter, and talking about the life of the unit as a whole being 12.5 years.
  3. [Edit: others got to answers before mine but I'll leave it as it is] Airtec lifes their cutters too, basically the same as the Cypres. Not as easy to notice as with Cypres dates though, if one happened to keep one as a spare to use for a repack during a boogie, even if not legal. At least I'd expect that if it failed, it wouldn't be going off accidentally, it would be failing to fire. It still comes down to the fact that the cutter is expired and only good for experiments. Airtec does pay a bit of money ($60? 75?) for an expired Cypres IF buying a brand new one. Hardly worth trying to sell it, unless a friend is about to buy a new one. BillyV: Cypres batteries are C cell sized, so they do work in flashlights. But it is hard to find C cell flashlights, and the voltage is higher than normal cells, so one has to get a different bulb. (Eg, a "4 cell" or "5 cell" bulb when using 2 cells.) As a rigger I've made fixed up some Cypres battery flashlights due to the free batteries lying around. But these days LED flashlights are so cheap and efficient it is hardly worth the effort to rig something up.
  4. Everyone has different perspectives, based on the norms and practices of the culture around them. Around where I am in southern Ontario, as far as I can tell, the rigging community doesn't seem to be worried about whether something would be legal in the USA, whether the manufacturer approved something, or whether the rigger at the sewing machine actually has his Rigger B rating (as required to sew stuff). Instead it becomes about actual function, not rules. We don't need TSO'd gear in Canada anyway, container or reserve. (Except for some demo jumps.) Which means you can hack and slash away at TSO'd gear, making it no longer TSO'd, but that's no problem. American riggers, through no fault of their own, seem to spend half their time rigging, and the other half trying to figure out what is actually legal according to the FAA! Many rules are adhered to here -- you won't get riggers packing out-of-date AAD's, and it would be extremely bad form to ignore most manufacturers' bulletins. But if one comes across a flap mod, if it looks like it'll work, no big deal. Or is some new tuck tab any worse than the old chewed up velcro? Is it any worse than tuck tabs on TSO'd gear that are too loose and pop open, or are so tight they are suspected of causing out of sequence openings? If something appears reasonable based on the rigger's best understanding, then it's OK. If they know why something might be dangerous, they fix it or don't pack it. Don't do rigging jobs you don't think you can do well.
  5. Could be. After all, as long as the kid was declared an Enemy Combatant it's all OK.
  6. There may be other rigging options. Some riggers may not mind rigging something up, especially if they are in Canada. It depends on their personal point of view on modifications to an approved configuration. I've seen flap redesigns, pillows, tuck tabs in place of velcro, ripcord reroutings, moved chest straps, and more.
  7. Locally I'm not sure. Mile High (arnprior), Gatineau, and further away, Gananoque... Parachute School of Toronto is open year round, but that's a long drive from Ottawa.
  8. Yeah that was a bit of a f*ckup. So you'll get chewed out here but there are things here for people to learn. A low exit shouldn't be any harder, it is only that people get psyched out if used to higher exits. Calculate the time available, eg, a 5 second delay is only 366 ft. For lower hop and pops you may actually have a lot more time than you might first think. Doing the numbers can help reduce people's worries. So figure out how much time you should have to your preferred minimum pull alt, or to some minimum decision altitude (eg, 2000' or whatever). In a way you did what instructors keep telling people -- if you are low and don't know how low, pull instead of wasting altitude to get stable. Yet at this point you should be avoiding that scenario, and as long as one's time sense isn't way out, a flip to belly should be quick enough. Sure, if one gets some momentum and wind blast effects going out the door, the first tumble may be unavoidable, maybe one goes for a 2nd, but then one should be able to quickly enough get control again. Gaining stability might be slowed by 'trying too hard', doing things too quickly without a plan -- that's where a quick flail doesn't work as well as a deliberate and slightly slower arch followed by a specific counter-action that one chooses. Kick the PC off? Sounds good to me. If still in a high speed mal and getting low, whether to cutaway first or just pull silver, that's an interesting one. In your case, the pin hadn't popped, so you weren't actually yet in some sort of horseshoe situation. I'll let others offer suggestions, but it tends to get into that area where both methods are accepted and some prefer one, some prefer the other. If faced with a possible two out with a horseshoe, I'd rather have some control over the main canopy, keeping it attached at my shoulders too, rather than possibly having it attached only at my foot. This is despite the possibility that the deploying main might pull the entanglement off one's foot. Just throwing out ideas here; none of this is official doctrine.
  9. Valid point. To add to it, the distinction is especially important in FAA-land, where part 105 says (I haven't checked the date of that but it is probably current) So the question then is, whether the FAA considers a recommendation only a recommendation or a firm instruction. I agree with those talking about how the 10 hPa thing is about relative altitudes. An altimeter only knows altitude by looking at pressure differences, and having an internal table or formula to tell it what pressure typically equals what altitude. A change of X hPa pressure at sea level is a different altitude change than X hPa starting at 5000'. So one wants the altimeter to at least accurately measure its starting pressure, even if it doesn't actually know one's altitude. (For wrist altis in skydiving, we just zero on the ground, which introduces small errors compared to zeroing them to sea level, but the difference is small enough it doesn't matter much for our purposes.)
  10. What happened to them not doing night launches? I thought that one one of their new strict rules after the first lost vehicle. The answer is probably that was their only good launch window? Still, that seems surprising. I don't know much about launch windows, but you'd think there would be one every day or something when trying to meet the space station. Going to a specific point on the moon, that's a different story, with understandably very limited windows for a particular plan if one learns about the details.
  11. If all else fails, it is on *cough* torrents *cough*.
  12. Yes, some seem to do that, but these are usually minor, or less of an evil, than the damage from the metal link/grommet/bridle damage we see with the metal link setup. So I wonder if the decreased rigidity of the slink vs. a rapide link lets the base of the bridle pull inwards towards the kill line when under tension, and thus allow for more rubbing. On the other hand, there is burning by the kill line and wear on the kill line anyway (with metal), so is it really much worse than with the metal link? And even if it is, is that compensated for, by not having the damage of the metal link bashing the grommet and the loops of bridle around it?
  13. Sad that you choose to ignore Spence's eyewitness report. Before this got split off from Incidents I asked Spence by PM. He shouldn't mind me sharing his answer: It's not clear if he actually saw all the details himself. In any case it sounds like an extremely rare event, "so it doesn't happen" IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES. I could see that if the jumper moves around a lot, if the bag had fallen out of the container, then one could move enough to extract the lines and pop the safety stow. And then, with another good tug, one could get the folded canopy to catch some air. Sounds like a lot of effort though. Or one might best be standing up and leaning forward to get the perfect pilot chute launch up into the air in very high wind to snatch the bag out and have the momentum to remove the freebag before the PC fell to the ground. That perfect PC launch isn't what will generally happen if one is getting dragged along the ground by one's main.
  14. I can't recall ever hearing about any comparison websites, not in the sense of a review site or comparison tables, like some website reviewing cellphone plans or software. Any of the major manufacturers has good rigs. Canopies are all sewn well, but vary in their characteristics a lot more, and peoples' flying preferences vary a lot too. Still, there's always someone who likes any modern canopy, so one can search on dz.com for the threads with endless argument. Even manufacturer's sites sometimes show very little detail, if you are the type to care about detail. For reserve canopies, web sites won't even always tell you something basic like the TSO type of the canopy. As for rigs, it it hard to find out all the little details: What kind of backpads are available? How are the main toggles tuck tabs designed? What is the reserve pilot chute mesh vs fabric design? How are their freefly handles attached to the top of the pilot chute? When any of the major rigs works, then it is the little details that matter -- either in day to day usability or to the discerning customer. So it isn't easy for someone new to the sport.
  15. Or, alternatively, this is an argument that the pilot should ensure there are procedures in place to always brief skydivers on what standard procedures are.
  16. For the orig. poster (sparky knows this stuff and can correct any error of mine): As for the AS8015 stuff, note that the 3 seconds is to the moment the parachute reaches full inflation -- not until the time when the canopy is flying in a nice steady state descent. After the 3 sec it may still be mushing downwards with a bunch of extra velocity, or pitching from the opening. And it will be in brakes and not ready to land normally. It'll take some seconds to undo the brakes, let it come out of the resulting dive, and then flare. So the 3 seconds is technically fine for saving your life, but another 100 or 200 feet would be really nice to have to avoid smashing ankles in real life.
  17. Nothing against what you said, but when I saw that I couldn't help but think: White flight! Leave this s***hole of a planet to the poor and move out to a nice gated community world further out in the suburbs of the galaxy! Eventually Earth might get gentrified, so the neighbourhood will be safe again... (I'm more in favour of trying to fix what we have here.)
  18. Guess I won't refuse the personal invitation! It is video from Brian's POV showing him and Laura doing a little freeflying, and Brian flying & landing his canopy. This one isn't about anything serious like packing tips or how to stay alive under canopy. Just plain skydivers having fun!
  19. Much of this issue comes down to what the "contract" is between skydivers and pilots. Are skydivers expected to be able to make some sort of "normal" exit without hitting the airplane structure? What is "normal"? And if not, what is adequate warning of special circumstances? We might decide that climbing exits with low tailed aircraft, even if normal for a particular DZ, are not considered normal in general, and thus deserve special attention especially for visiting jumpers. Even if skydiver education generally is made to include more about different aircraft types, realistically people will always start with experience on one type and have to learn about other types and other DZ's procedures. One hopes that the warning about a special exit isn't just something that hopefully someone on a load will mention if they remember. My DZO is a bit of a fogey but has a written DZ orientation sheet for anyone new on the DZ, to be discussed by an experienced local jumper, and signed off by the visitor. Not a bad idea really. While I'm all for personal responsibility, you wouldn't want to go to a DZ and have someone tell you after your jump, "We locals all know there's that sharp metal at the side of the door frame; it's your dumb fault if you didn't notice, got cut up, and nearly snagged your reserve cable on it." While one tries to be alert for hazards, that isn't one that most jumpers consider normally acceptable. None of this is black or white but it would be nice for more people to know what to expect when they try to exit the aircraft. EDIT: I'd certainly like to hear whether what's in the ad is USPA policy, and if so, whether it is something that has been around a while or is new. It does seem a little unfair to pilots if they haven't had adequate opportunity to learn what the USPA standard is.
  20. Put it in the chamber and see if you can reproduce the result. I believe that's the plan. The DZ's experience with FXC reliability has generally been good. Over about 10 years, for example, I recall only once hearing of a problem with one firing unexpectedly (under canopy in that case), and needed to go back for manufacturer checks. Probably a couple others were found during DZ chamber tests to be getting a bit out of spec and being sent back. All of the FXCs in use (about 30-35 at one time) do get their proper 2 yr factory checks.
  21. Sorry Brian, I wasn't trying to imply that your video was pointless. Just a personal peeve of mine -- I like to see a brief description of what a video is about, before I decide whether to click through to watch it (no matter how well known the author is).
  22. So, could someone chip in and say what the video is actually about?
  23. I don't see a problem doing some practice packs on one's own. It'll help Harmless get used to what's in the manual, and think about the implications all those steps. Will he do some things in an amateurish or wrong manner? Of course. But he'll be learning the right way in a couple weeks, so it isn't as if he'll have long term ingrained habits. He'll already have some knowledge of the steps involved. By the way Harmless, step 47-48 on the nose: Slide the 2 groups of leading edges inwards until they are just hidden under the stack, while keeping them facing the same way as they start - towards the outside. As you do it, the extra material behind the leading edge gets into an S fold just above it. EDIT: Step 46 is the only cocooning that happens. Nothing ends up wrapping around the nose. It stays exposed for clean fast inflation Report back in a month to say how things went...
  24. Sometimes all the explanation and insistance in the world that something is wrong, isn't enough to convince someone -- until they can fit the situation into their own mental model to see where & why the model is flawed. Looks like we all might be getting somewhere now!
  25. Yes since we can't run parallel universe experiments one can't know the benefits of an intentional for sure. Interesting observations about the lack of any large perceived value in doing an intentional. I can accept that there isn't really a skill to be learned by doing an intentional, the amount of practice is pretty small, and it isn't like the real thing. Still, it can reduce apprehension about a future mal (no matter what actually happens during the mal), and is something people may be interested in doing to experience it. Just like other interesting and new things in skydiving. There may be small, useful bits of learning going on, even if it isn't life saving. Whether dealing with toggle pop or line over or what have you, people may well say they dealt with it a little better once they've experienced it a couple times. If I have a spinning mal with line twists again, I figure I should be able to fight the twists better than the first time it happened (although probably nothing would help), and be even more aware of time and altitude (although I was aware). The first spinning mal under a small canopy was simply different than anything I had actually experienced. And that's even though I had done a few intentional chops before, including one where I cut away one side first and spun quickly. The real mal is still different. Still, every chop was interesting. An intentional can help with not only getting used to the handles, but also reduced stability after the chop. So perhaps doing an intentional isn't really an important tool in helping deal with future emergencies, but it can be interesting and add a little to one's knowledge and skills.