pchapman

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...

Was this a lot of in and out use, or leaving them in for the whole shift? I wonder how things factor in: the ear itself building up with bacteria over time vs. transfer to the ear plugs, and the effect of continuous time in ear vs. in and out. (Eg., in 30 minutes, out an hour.) I don't know the answer but I wonder if the skydiving application is less hazardous.

Just a little post with an example of poor rigging. I found this on a Student Vector III after use. The seal thread keeping the lanyard on the hook had 4 turns of thread instead of the one in the manual. And since it was the Skyhook 2 with the 2 clear plastic plates, it didn't need to be tacked through the bridle itself. On the plus side I'm sure it is effective in keeping from losing freebags... Applying a steady pull to the RSL, and the bridle from the pilot chute end, didn't break the thread even when my scale maxed out at 50 lbs. Due to the Skyhook hook being off the bridle's axis, under tension the Skyhook twists in position and the force is not directly along the hook. If I unnaturally forced the RSL to pull straight along the hook, I was able to get the thread to break at 45 lbs. Just going by the manual, it wants ONE TURN of thread. (I'll grant that it can be a little confusing at first glance: The old manuals said "one piece", not specifically defining one turn, while the newer Skyhook 2 instructions say "one turn" but the photo at first glance makes it look a lot like two turns.)

A couple of us riggers locally have been only semi joking that we should indeed start charging extra! Not that we do so, nor have we charged extra for Racers. On the other hand the Vector started out being easier to pack than some others, since it has the fully internal pilot chute. Whether one charges extra can also depend if one's pricing is more all-inclusive vs. lower end.

I've worn earplugs up & down for 2000+ jumps, often in C-182's, but also in turbines. I notice a few of the regular jumpers at the DZ wear them, although most do not. While I sometimes need to do some pressure equalization under canopy or on the ground to hear fully, the pressure difference has never been uncomfortable. And it doesn't seem any worse than all those tandem students who don't know how to equalize and initially complain of not being able to hear when back on the ground -- so it isn't just earplugs that do it. Some people might avoid earplugs because their helmets are quieter to begin with, if they wear them all the way up too. Depends on the fit and ear coverage.

The Dolchstosslegende of the Imperium!

I've dealt directly with Denmark, but I've also been lucky to have a local dealer. I don't know what the standards are, but he has been able to check with the factory and then deal with some issues locally, such as swapping a malfunctioning unit for new stock.

Hi Distabled, I'm just saying that licences in general have requirements to get them, and if you can't fulfill the requirements as written, you obviously can't get the licence. So you might need get special approval for equivalent skills. E.g. as you mentioned, maybe the point is to demonstrate getting back on belly, which can be done by rolling not just backlooping. That way you might get the full licence. Or, if something just can't be done, get special approval for a restricted licence that doesn't include something that can't be done. E.g. Let's say you can't fulfill the RW requirements fully, because you can't get 3 RW docks from nine five because using hand tracking only is slower than using legs. Either someone has to decide the skills are still good enough for a full licence, or issue a restricted one, where say the rules on who one can do RW with is more restricted. I don't know what in particular Minna can do, so that's one reason I was asking her. (Note in Canada after the A licence one can only do 2 ways, and there are limits on who the other person can be. After more RW coaching before the B, then one is pretty much free to jump with anyone one wants.)

... And funny how it is named after after some dude who is a god of water ...

Wow. Only a wingsuit, the news says. C'mon, if you aren't going to take a parachute along, at least put on a pair of clean underwear.

A very good point. But despite the awkward skin color issue, I think there's also a concern with value systems, numbers of people, and socio-economic background. So if someone meets an illegal from France, in other words a guy from another wealthy industrialized democracy, a person isn't going to worry that there must be are millions more French people who want to show up, so that soon you'll be walking into stores unable to read the signs and seeing nothing but cheese, wine, and long pieces of bread to buy. My DZO (in Canada) did once look into hiring Mexicans as packers, and we did have a couple guys from the ex Soviet Union over for the past season as TIs. It did give the DZO a steady base of TI's every day of the week, but of course cut into the jumps local TI's did.

This isn't a big deal, but I have found a clear plastic cover for the Skyhook's actual hook that got all cracked. An bit of a snag hazard. It was the plastic cover below the hook that got cracked the most, around where the red lanyard formed a lump where it went around the hook. The factory told me it has happened occasionally, that they have improved the plastic used. And they will send a rigger a few free covers if they need them. These replacement covers have slots, so they can be slipped on. That way one doesn't have to completely take apart and resew the Skyhook system, something that UPT might get a little anxious about! The replacement covers they sent don't seem all that special or anything, but should do the job. The necessary slots in the plastic form their own sharp corners but away from the actual hook & RSL loop area. This happened on a rig just a couple years old, so it was the Skyhook version where one tacks through holes in the top and bottom cover. The early ones just had a top cover and one tacked through the bridle. The rig was a small Micron with a PD106. I didn't look at exactly where the base of the pilot chute sits when well centered on that particular rig, but it may just press down on the Skyhook through flap 2A. And it probably doesn't help when a rigger is kneeling above the closing loop, on the pilot chute, when hauling up on the loop to close the rig. One could easily get some high localized forces on the Skyhook. The factory gave me the impression from my questions that it was OK in the short term to just take any cracked covers off until one had the replacement ones available, doing the old style tacking-through-the-bridle, and packing it up that way. Sounds OK to me; the Skyhook is still well protected. But I don't claim that to be officially sanctioned.

Completely anecdotal evidence from this summer: A rigger I know watches a reserve ride (a save of hers) and then talks to that jumper, who had used his Tempo reserve for the first time. She says to me, "Turns out it's a Tempo L !" I wasn't on the ball so I say, "Huh?" She clenches her hands, sticks her left hand way up, her right hand way down. Got it, it's a Tempo L, not a Tempo R....

Yes I did mean it would be nice to be able to do both, combining what one could do with the old skydivingmovies, and what one can do with youtube etc (if one has additional download software).

I don't know about the technical aspects, but it is nice to have the option these days of seeing (or downloading) either: a) the full quality video in the format the uploader used or b) a smaller FLV file that is automatically generated That would combine the best of both worlds.

Congratulations!! Minna, that would be the CSPA Solo licence that is pending? The first for a gimp in Canada?? What comes after that? Will the CSPA be able to offer some sort of restricted 'A' licence? Things like a backloop, or some of aspects of the RW endorsement, would be rather tough without leg mobility.

Didn't expect to see that when I opened DZ.com this morning. She wasn't that old! She was well known at the old PST at Arthur, and was involved in the recently established reunions at the new PST at Baldwin Ontario. She was also one of the DZ riggers, wasn't she? A year back I uploaded an old VHS video of her & her 4 way team, interviewed for TV in '94. It's at the facebook page for the old Arthur PST: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2467762796#/video/video.php?v=128202305656&oid=2467762796 (I haven't checked if this is visible to anyone not on facebook.)

Yeah it is you own call. As soon as you feel comfortable with whatever landing options are out there, it's OK to chase stuff. It is normal for anyone on the load who sees chopped gear to make sure someone is chasing it, and accept an out landing to help a fellow skydiver as long as one isn't endangering oneself. I have seen a few cases where people should have been looking out for each other and didn't. Look around after opening, not just to avoid collisions, but see that everyone in your group are apparently safe and sound. Seeing something like a blocky all orange or all white canopy with no pilot chute is usually a sign someone got a little extra excitement on their jump... (Note that midair catching of stuff is something different entirely. While it is done with freebags, there are potential dangers, more so with canopies, and has killed even a very experienced skydiver.) Of course there may be local variations. Rarely a DZ may even have someone on the ground who specializes in chasing chopped stuff. Others may have some terrain around, like extensive forests or subdivisions, where you can't really land close to chopped equipment. Something to watch out for are too many people circling around looking for gear and not watching where they are going. Or people focusing so much on the chopped gear that they don't get set up well for a landing. That can happen if chasing too closely, circling hard and close to something, instead of trying to stand off more, descending slowly and watching from above. Then there's the question of whether to follow the main or freebag. It depends on terrain and who else is out there to help. The freebag may be harder for anyone else to spot, so sometimes one can let someone else chase the main. On the other hand, if there's a chance of losing something, it is usually a lot cheaper to lose the freebag, so chase the main. Like a lot of things in skydiving, it is you choice what to do to not get yourself hurt.

Just my opinion, but it does seem that older equipment normally never had the really sharp edged, snappy opening behaviour like in the zero P and Spectra era. While I can't quantify how much difference zero-P makes, or slick & unelastic Spectra vs. rougher & stretchier Dacron, it does seem the modern stuff can have openings with a more rapid onset of G's. Modern canopies can also have a much worse shaking motion. Older canopies didn't have that rapid hunting left and right that can occur with modern canopies, whether the opening is fast or not. A fast shaking is particularly tough on one's head and neck. It isn't that old stuff can't open rapidly, but the rise and decay of the G forces seems smoother. Openings on things like ParaCommanders and Paradactyls are that way -- openings can be really 'heavy', sinking you in your harness and making you grunt, but they just don't have that 'whack' regular jumpers expect out of a bad opening modern ramair. And if you know the canopy opens hard, then you should be prepared for it, unlike when a modern softer opening canopy has a rogue opening. (These days you pretty much have to warn people if lending them an F-111 canopy, as they'll think a normal opening is surprisingly hard...)

I recall that incident, and the link is useful. Still, the point should be that bird strikes are very, very rare.

I don't know what Paragear has been selling lately, but a few years back their BOC pouches used pretty lousy spandex material -- that thin stuff that was normal on BOC's way back. I've usually bought BOCs from a container manufacturer, that use the modern much more heavyweight material.

That's a bizarre incident to witness but I think you would agree that his thoughts may have been something other than, "I must remain perfectly still and avoid uneven weighting of the harness, as this would add confounding factors in this attempt at data collection to study wind effects on parachute dynamics!"

Canopies turning downwind? Wish that had worked for those static line or IAD students who didn't listen to their radio at all and sailed off randomly into the distance instead of heading back to the DZ! My best understanding so far is what PilotDave said about what Kallend had described in earlier threads on this topic -- That normally the wind doesn't matter, but wind shear can have an effect. Theoretically due to yaw stability of the canopy, hitting a sudden new wind would turn the canopy slightly into wind. Conversely, going down through wind shear to lower wind (as is typical) would turn the canopy out of the wind direction. Whether the shear is enough to make a practical difference in most cases, that seems less likely. It is one thing to turn a little downwind (eg 20 degrees), vs. actually turning until lined up fully downwind. (eg 180 degrees) Consider a canopy in a strong crosswind and then descending past the edge of a forest acting as a windbreak. I doubt the canopy is going to swing 90 degrees away from the wind to line up downwind. Or sometimes it is easier to imagine the reverse -- going from shelter behind large buildings, to a sudden crosswind when out in the open. The same yaw stability theory would have the canopy turn "into" the wind. Maybe yes, but not 90 degrees worth. So I don't see that say 15 kts of wind shear between opening and landing are going to be enough to turn a canopy all that much. JackC brings in the roll issue. There it isn't quite clear what the net effect would be, but I'm thinking there's still some overall yaw stability that dominates. But I'm open to better evidence or theories.

But a smaller one would have shorter lines, so the drag penalty would not be as high .. That's certainly a point. It gets messy though and I don't quite know the answer. There is often some assumption of higher wing loading for smaller canopies (as you suggested), and higher speed, where one cares more about drag. On the other hand one can ask why one cares more about drag of lines in particular, as the actual amount drag of everything goes up with speed? In that way lines can't be singled out. However, it seems so having less drag is more important for having the energy for a good flare, when dealing with higher wing loadings and speeds. (E.g., if one had to jump a Manta at 2.3 wing loading, one might care more about line type!) Also, due to the square-cube law type stuff, the line length will vary slower than the area. (E.g., scale a canopy down to half size in every dimension = half the line length but one quarter the area) So lines have relatively bigger for small canopies. This holds only because we don't scale lines down in thickness -- if one downsizes by one size one doesn't change 600 lb Dacron to 550 lb Dacron. The canopy is smaller but the lines are just as thick. So the answer isn't exactly clear cut, but I think in general there are still reasons to be more concerned about line thickness for smaller canopies.