pchapman

You've got a point. In some ways it is like a Handbury in my basement, but I can't tell how it might resemble a Wonderhog. The rig in the photo: - Looks kind of like it has that smooth, thickly padded backpad of a Handbury - It almost looks like there's a bellyband, as on some Handburys, sitting across the chair, but I can't tell. - The reserve housing attachments are like a Handbury. - The thin white strip at the left would be the side of the rig, barely visible. It seems rather wavy, which could be the plastic reinforced side that existed for a while on Handburys. However, the chest strap buckle is on the opposite side to the Handbury I have. Someone who is familiar with Wonderhogs may be able to say whether it looks more like one or not.

1500' too low? Yes and no in my opinion. To some degree, "decision altitude is where ever you are at." If you are high, you don't have to delay a decision down to that altitude, for it is the minimum altitude you prefer to chop. And if you are low, you may choose to move the limit down, as a practical decision even if it isn't ideal. So if you are on a jump where you pulled expecting to be open at around 3000' and you have an issue, you might not screw around with high speed problem below 2500', yet screw around with a lower speed problem no lower than your "normal" decision altitude of 1800'. But if you pulled at 2200' you may be snivelling through 1800' so you certainly don't use 1800' as your decision altitude. You might use 1500' as the limit. And if you really pulled low, and were snivelling through 1500', what then? It may not be ideal, but I think a lot of people would stick with their main if the opening sequence seemed to be progressing normally, instead of chopping in mid-snivel.

Hi Pookieland, I'm looking forward to seeing the video once it's available, and future stories about how you deal with learning to fly. From time to time plenty of us have gotten a little excited about posting things, whether new to the sport or not. You were taking it well beyond the normal limits of etiquette with all those posts with little content so I did call you on it. Anyway, sounds like everything may be a little calmer now. Happy New Year!

Just to use it as an example, the same semantic issues come up with it -- The Speed reserves are certified to 254 lbs but the maximum suspended weights (to "never exceed") are lower, e.g. 158 lbs for the 120 size. So again, we have the issue whether (in FAA-land or elsewhere) one has to follow the certification limits or ALL manufacturer's instructions. The manual also says to store the canopy in a cool dark place, not over 20C. So is an FAA rigger liable to lose his rating if his shop is any warmer?

The canopy is a Firelite, so I'm OK for freefall. (My friends and I have mainly been using large, old F-111 canopies... Cruislites, Furies etc.!)

Any tips on setting up a d-bag with a retractable pilot chute system? I only do the occasional CRW and am not up on the current preferred techniques. I'm obtaining a used canopy set up with a retractable pilot chute, so it has the 3 rings on the top skin and a dacron line as the bridle, with a floating pin. Since I'd be using the canopy for more than hop and pops, I'd like to add a d-bag, yet perhaps keep using the retractable bridle system. Would it be better to have a small grommet in the d-bag to let only the bridle slip through it, or use a big #8 grommet? I'm not sure on all the different possibilities for fabric burns and entanglements...

Normally I try to play nice and be curteous on dz.com, but could you please Shut the Fuck Up? You're the author of the last 10 threads in this forum, and in many of them, there's zero content other than the title. When you finally did get to do a non-tandem jump or two, you didn't write anything about the techniques used or challenges overcome, so there was nothing interesting to come out of all your "X days before my solo" threads. Asking a question about something legitimate like PLFs is fine. Its great to be excited about skydiving, but please chill out on the keyboard even if you're not much one for jumping up and dancing around for joy to burn off some of that energy...

There have been a very few dropzones who have also put mechanical AAD's (FXC's) on the MAIN container, and had them set to go off at altitudes like you mention. That way it guards against students who might otherwise pull low or not pull -- without waiting for that very last ditch, below 1000' reserve activation. Which can get scary for the DZO too, and be expensive if cutters need to be replaced. It is an odd way to do things and requires modified equipment (eg ripcord main activation).

The Parkour roll is interesting, and thanks for the video links OG-Tahiti. I'm just musing, but I wonder if these are the problems with it for skydiving: 1. The issue of toggles. One could move one's hands anywhere after touching down, but it makes it at least somewhat harder to prepare for the parkour roll. 2. The use of hands on the ground, especially on rougher ground, exposes one to greater risk of hand and wrist injury. But one could argue this point either way, as a PLF exposes the whole side of one's body to the rough ground. 3. It is more "athletic" in that a tighter tuck is needed than in the PLF, which a) is tougher with equipment on, and b) may be tougher to do if one can't predict the impact timing well (eg, dropping in through tall grass in rough terrain), and c) I think it requires more precision to do correctly. The question is whether that can be gained just by more training, or ends up being tough to do when one can't judge one's impact speed as well. (I don't have proof but it always seems easier to roll when one jumps from something than when dropped under a canopy at a roughly constant speed. Evolution seems to have equipped us better to estimate the timing of impact when falling under the influence of Earth's gravity, rather than at something more like a constant or semi-flared speed. Jumping from something is more "natural".) 4. The PLF is adaptable to falls in all directions, unlike the Parkour roll. Granted, most skydivers are likely only practiced in PLF'ing in roughly one direction, eg. feeling comfortable rolling forward or forward right but not to the forward left. The military tend to practice rolls towards every quadrant since that's more likely needed with round canopies. 5. The Parkour roll might be absorbing more of the vertical impact on the initial leg & body bend. The torso keeps on descending, and the hands and lower arm are the next points of impact. While some impact can be taken that way, in the videos it often looks like it isn't one continuous roll. It is almost a landing on one's feet, with extra forward momentum, and the person throwing themselves into the forward roll at that point. The PLF may be more flexible in how much energy is absorbed in the initial leg & body bend, although one still needs to absorb a lot of the vertical speed that way, to avoid slamming the torso too hard on the ground. For example, at the end of the Ryan Doyle video he does a front flip off a say 7 ft high wall, touches down on his feet and continues through the Parkour roll. In slow motion you can see his arms hardly flex as he supports the roll with his hands. Despite his athleticism, I think he took almost all of the vertical impact in the initial landing (It is a different situation where Ryan Doyle does a dive up from level ground where he touches down on his arms only.) 6. [Edited in after seeing skyjumpenfool's post:] Good point about feet together. Having them apart may work well on flat level terrain that one can see, but not be good in those PLFs that have to be done in other types of conditions where the mutual support of feet together both prevents an ankle from rolling over and avoids taking too much of the impact on one foot. Like a couple of my other arguments, this doesn't make the Parkour roll worse on its own, but does mean it applies only to more specific conditions. While I see some potential issues with the Parkour roll for skydiving, I'm not totally ruling it out. Someone would need to practice it, at least wearing a rig, to get some better ideas on how practical it is.

I see what you mean. I was thinking of the thread purely in terms of "how often does one's main canopy fail when it is deployed from the pack". This is opposed to the more inclusive definition adding in failures from CRW or canopy wraps or times one chopped after a two-out whether due to a faulty RSL or a low pull, but probably not including intentional cutaways nor cutaways that are done in response to a total so that the rings are cut away but the main canopy is still in the container, and maybe or maybe not including a cutaway where someone accidentally pulled the handle in freefall. There are a lot of special cases which may or may not be implied. So someone can throw in my one CRW chop if they prefer a different definition.

15071 + 2443 = 17514 10 + 2 = 12 (not incl. crw wraps) 17514/12 = 1 in 1460

How does that work? Slider, RDS, or sew on a bridle attachment point? Where do people discuss this sort of thing? It isn't the usual thing on dz.com. ParaglidingForum.com? Or is there a site that speedflyer canopy pilots congregate at? I know of the small acro paragliders but not what's been done with speedflying wings.

Ah, now I understand: their velcro free-bag design, not a velcro-free bag design.

I didn't check them all, but those links seem to be about well known skydivers who are missing limbs. I thought this thread was about someone with paraplegia, limbs they can't control.

It's probably just that the play speed happens to be faster than the data is getting to your computer. So make sure the video has started playing, then hit pause, it will keep loading the video, go do something else for a minute or two, then watch it. The dull red line to the right of the knob showing your current position in the video, shows how much has been loaded. So you don't want the current position in the video to overtake what has already been loaded.

Ok, I have gone a bit overboard this Sunday morning but here's one answer: Reason? "Tension knot" is the term for it. Sometimes a tension knot can be a big jumble of lines where they deployed in a disorderly manner and tensioned lines catching on things like loops of slacker line. Other times there are only a few lines involved, and even for an experienced jumper under the canopy it can be hard to see exactly what and why it is happening. Lines catch on each other, especially where there are lumps in the lines, such as where lines are sewn into each other where they split up from single to multiple ones. That's very roughly where it looks like it is happening on your canopy -- where one brake line becomes four, where two outer lines split into two each. Cause? It can be just bad luck, but the chance will go up with: - a sloppier pack job where the lines weren't kept well tensioned and straight, or - lines being older and fuzzier, or - perhaps when brake lines get many twists in them (which need to be cleared from time to time when packing) Usually there's no particular way to say why it happened on one jump and not hundreds of previous ones. (I've never really seen much analysis of tension knots in skydiving, so if there are better ways to explain it, somebody go for it.) Did you do the right thing as a jumper in general (rather than as a first jump student)? Actually there have been other threads lately where experienced skydivers have argued about what to do in cases where there is a canopy problem like a broken line or broken brake line or canopy tear, where in many cases the canopy may still seem to fly OK. There aren't easy answers. If someone really feels they can land it, they can choose to. But sometimes the canopy may be controllable and flying well enough "up there", but at some later point one might get the canopy into a state where control isn't very effective any more. Or, one might be moving faster than normal but not notice it, and not have that much control to slow the canopy in the flare for landing. It can be hard to tell up high, even experimenting with the brakes, to tell exactly how much the speed and the flare differs from normal. So the recommendation becomes to get rid of the canopy unless you have really really good reasons to think that you can land it -- and it is the really good reasons part that is up for debate. Did you do the right thing, as a first jump student? Generally the answer is that if you walked away from a skydive, you did OK. The idea is that sometimes there is no one correct answer on what to do. Of course there are exceptions to this simplistic rule, like that you didn't survive by pure luck when another option would have been much better, or you hurt someone else along the way. Instruction for first jump students is kept simple so as not to be confusing about all sorts of little details that the student isn't likely to perceive or take action on a first jump anyway. 99% of the time, a malfunction is going to be easy to recognize, largely because it is bad enough -- all the stuff they will have taught about rushing air, lack of anything but a ball of garbage above you, spinning wildly, etc. Very occasionally you'll get something that is hard to recognize, often because it is relatively minor, like what you experienced. Schools vary in exactly what details they teach their students about malfunctions, especially for those rare more grey areas. I'll assume you followed what you were taught, in that the canopy was "controllable" in some particular way, that you could turn left or right or flare and they canopy stayed roughly square above you. But if you let both toggles up, the canopy wouldn't be flying straight. It wouldn't just gradually drift off heading, which is OK, but would probably slowly wind up into a spiralling dive. I've seen decent, well-established schools where I thought they didn't really cover the "flying straight" aspect: Even after the jumper watches the canopy fully open, and also does a controllability check, one last test of the canopy being right is that the canopy should be flying approximately straight on its own. As others have said, you needed a lot of brake to keep the canopy going straight, which to an experienced jumper would show that there was a significant problem and that getting a good flare for landing was going to be tough.

What were the prices of a film like Masters of The Sky, back when one was actually ordering a reel of film? It was pretty expensive back then, wasn't it? The type of thing a club would join together to buy? Plus one needed to have the projector.

Still use WDI's at a dz I'm at, where the DZO is very traditional. Used on 1st load of the day if it is a 182 and not the Caravan, and at the start of any solo first jump course (static line) later in the day. Students learn to throw the WDI as part of learning spotting. Anyone doing demos around here, no matter what DZ they are from, seems to use a WDI. (I think a WDI is normally on the list of conditions for doing a demo when Transport Canada approval is needed for built up areas etc.) CSPA rules are to use a WDI or an alternative method of determining wind drift -- which essentially allows anything from a rate 1 turn to checking the forecast.

Nice questions / challenge. A few comments: - I know TK's rising/sinking target is mathematically wrong if one tries to apply it from other places in the circuit, other than on final approach. It may work in some cases, but not always. So while I think there's benefit in thinking about the angle to the target that one expects to be able to achieve when on final, I won't apply TK's method specifically. - I think there can be more done with getting jumpers to perceive the sight picture and descent angle. For a given jumper under a given canopy at full flight, and a given wind (with a given typical wind shear gradient), the final approach angle to the landing point will always be the same. Yes conditions change, but a jumper has to get used to the idea of what his approach angle is going to be in whatever he thinks as zero/light/medium/strong/very strong winds. One needs to get used to thinking about the approach angle as a starting point for figuring out where one wants to set oneself up on approach, and for applying the accuracy trick. (Even if it is only to see what went wrong on one approach to try to fix on the next.) - One pretty much has to teach different accuracy styles, one for being alone in the sky vs. in the circuit of a busy turbine DZ. The rules clearly differ on how important exact accuracy is, versus what maneuvers are permissible in the air. Although I sometimes talk about the old school vs new school techniques, that is a bit unfair. It is really just that different techniques are appropriate in different situations. If you are making an off-landing into a small clearing, you'd be good to have S-turning in your arsenal of techniques you've practiced, even if you learned at a big turbine DZ where people normally beat you up for trying that on final. - Use of brakes for approaches is to be taught, but canopies vary a lot. Putting on brakes won't always steepen the glide; a little brake may extend the glide especially with a low headwind. It gets messy if one tries to fully explain the whole glide polar thing, although I at least introduce it in canopy control seminars. Still, hanging in brakes can often produce a steeper glide if one is still OK when it comes to turbulence or stall point. - Tighter circuits. Some teachings for novices have them make huge circuits. Eg 1000/800/500 ft for downwind/base/final. Tighter circuits (800/500/300 ???) will keep any errors in accuracy smaller. - If one isn't in a situation where big S turns are appropriate, and brakes are good more for smaller adjustments to glide path, what's left as one's main tool? Then I figure it is all about making the circuit suit the winds. So I think a lot of emphasis has to go into when to turn base and final, with the whole base and final thing being a big curve if necessary, constantly adjusted to get the accuracy one wants. It isn't about doing a sharp 90, another sharp 90, and then finding oneself on final in the wrong spot to hit one's target. - The idea of a tighter circuit and a fluid, varying base and final will also fit in better with when a jumper starts to learn accelerated landings, little front riser 90 dives etc. Then one can vary one's circuit not just so much in its horizontal planform, but vertically. I don't think that ever gets much talked about. You hear about "this is the circuit that a novice learns", and "this is how to swoop", but not much between. So even if one turns base and final at the same spot, one varies how sharp a dive one makes. Need to extend one's final? Do a gradual efficient turn to maintain altitude. Need to keep from going too far on final? Make a sharper turning dive that kills altitude and burns off potential energy through the drag at high speed.

Just my opinion: - Find a toolbox. Many different sizes available. You have to decide whether to get a small portable one for "just the essentials", or some huge one "for everything". Some have a fair number of little compartments too, although not like a fishing tackle box. -- Rigging manuals? Bookmark various manufacturers' sites, plus parachutemanuals.com, the UK Skydiver manuals collection http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=209, and the Aussie federation rigging site for their bulletin list http://docs.apf.asn.au/index.php/Rigging_and_Equipment Those are my top picks.

One does get into the big issue about promises made on fidelity, versus that idea about "... but everyone's cheating". Or at least, how can you expect a rich, talented, and famous man to want to limit himself to one woman? Plenty of men have loved their wife and kids but still wanted something on the side, whether it is right or not. (And it's not always the guys. There's interesting data out there on the number of women who cheat, and the number of guys who are legally obligated to support a child that isn't genetically theirs. Once someone has accepted the role of father they tend to be legally required to maintain that role even if the kid isn't theirs!) Even if as a guy one feels one's morals would prevent one from cheating, why wouldn't one want to get experience with different women? Guys tend to like variety. It seems at times that it shouldn't be any different than other things in life. My pilot's log book has a table right in the front for all the different aircraft one has flown. And I've flown something like 90 different parachutes. Even if I love my FX 88 most, I love to spend some time with my Maverick, my Sabre, my ParaCommander and so on. I even love my little Cobalt 75, although she's a tempermental , squirrely little bitch at times. Still fun to jump her though!

There was talk in an old thread (2002?) about how Carl's films were available on PAL VHS from Europe but there was no supplier for NTSC. I don't know what the legal status is, but like some things on the interwebs, I'd say get it while you can... (The description at YouTube says that the vid was edited down a little to fit YouTube's limits.)

In any case it does bring up the old issue of having to pack in FAA-land in accordance with manufacturers' instructions. Sure you know 'em, but how do you prove you did so if you can't even find a copy of the manual?!

There typically are formal procedures through the USPA or CSPA or what have you. But in practice, without something extreme going on, one tends to talk to the rigger to sort things out before bumping it up a level. That can work well in case of honest errors or people getting a little sloppy or not knowing better. When I don't think someone would be very receptive to criticism, I've for example talked to the DZO who hired the rigger or where the rigger has apparently been active. I can't say it is a perfect system in practice. It does deal with issues, without trying to overblow things but can also mean repeated issues are hidden from view of others. In the end one has to use judgment and one's conscience about what to do and how to do it. Oh yeah, the staging loop bungee on that rig went through both backpad grommets (like the closing loop does) instead of just one (as in the manual). It would work fine but again it is evidence of not giving any attention to the manual.

Yeah, a total mal when subterminal, a poor pilot chute launch with it being unlucky to stay a bit in the burble... then I could see it not yanking with 50+ pounds force right away. So it probably would clear after a few seconds, but it still wouldn't be good for the jumper's heart rate...