pchapman

Are they actually allowed to, as in it being approved by the APF? Or do they just do it? I don't jump there and haven't reviewed the Aussie rules in detail, but a CASA (Aussie civil aviation authority) document is out on the web. It specifies a bunch of responsibilities for the pilots, DZO, jumpers, manifest, local airspace authorities, and so on. A risk analysis has to be conducted. A DZ must specifically request to to do cloud jumping at a particular location, the parachuting federation must approve their application, and then the CASA has to consider and approve it too, with any modifications they deem necessary for reasonable safety. Approval must be renewed every few years. So it is much more than just "you can do it in such and such airspace class".

Go to this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3686122;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

The NTSB report suggests that the contamination didn't come out of the blue -- still, other info sources would be useful as you suggest. From NTSB report ATL85MA286 for Sept 29, 1985.

Gary Lewis' classic Para-Commander Handbook seems to be out of print and I never found it on the web, so I finally scanned my copy in and got it uploaded to parachutemanuals.com. (http://www.parachutemanuals.com//index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=&func=fileinfo&id=308) My copy is pretty clean but has a few scribbled annotations on it. It's a great little booklet and I hope it is useful for other old canopy enthusiasts who don't yet have it. (Parachutemanuals has been dormant for uploads in the last year, but after discussing the issue with him, Phreezone discovered a wrong setting that prevented most uploads from completing, that should now be fixed.) I got my handbook some years ago when Para-Gear was cleaning out the last of their stock for $1. Is Gary still around? Theoretically he could republish the handbook but the market has shrunk. The handbook's subtitle is "Purchasing, packing, flying, and modifying all types of P.C.'s". Publication dates of 1976 and 1978 are shown, and the back cover says: "The information in this manual is based on 10 years of jumping and working with Paracommanders. The author has 2500 PC-type jumps, has competed on and coached the United States Parachute Team, is a Master Parachute Rigger, Drop Zone owner and manager of Para-Gear Equipment Co. of Skokie, Illinois."

They mostly come at night... mostly. - Newt, "Aliens"

The interpretation of the video is tough. To deal with the sometimes awkward FLV format, I downloaded the video, converted it to another format, and viewed it frame by frame in Vegas. Early on it isn't clear whether the Skyhook wasn't working at all, or perhaps it was working but only initially -- e.g., in some ways it appears at one point like the bridle goes up to a riser and then back out of sight to where the pilot chute would be, as in the attached screen grab. The problem is that there is a lot of ghosting in the video, so one bridle often seems like two, presumably due to the de-interlacing done for the video on the web. Also, even in the attached photo, the main canopy and slider seem far away, and it isn't clear what is a riser and where the length of RSL to the Skyhook would be. One really has to look at other frames from the video. Later, after the deployment sequence goes largely off screen and then back on, at that point the main seems far off and the pilot chute is seen pulling the freebag away. In between the early and late parts of the deployment, there seems to be a lot of whipping of the reserve risers. That could be normal whipping around, as happens with lines before they are tensioned for a while. On the other hand, it also could point to a particular lack of tension between when the main canopy might be pulling the freebag, and when the p.c. is pulling the freebag. So was the freebag detached from the main, what version of Skyhook was used, and was any of the red seal thread at the hook was still present, etc.?? I'm still really not sure what was going on in the video.

Yup. A premolded heel add-on is available from somewhere. A few years back, for example, there was someone down at Raeford NC who would take one's favorite shoes, reshape the heels and fit the new striking point on. For simple accuracy I used to just take a pair of cheap runners and shave the back corners of the heel down, to leave more of a point.

So what is Jump Shack doing with leg strap hardware? That's one area where manufacturers have had issues trying to find the best combination of properties.

Unless they are gun lovin' Amurric'ns!

I agree with what you are saying, and always found the priority thing a little confusing. Also agreed. The rules shouldn't be taught in that 3 point form. They aren't prescriptive, they don't tell someone what to do. You can't use them as a guide while in freefall. To figure out what to do, one has to parse all three statements, figure out which to apply, then rank them to get the one of highest priority. And one has to assume extra information for #1, "Pull", because it doesn't mean to pull right away even when above normal pull height. And then if you do whistle through deployment height, you might say, "All that matters is #1, to pull, while pulling at the correct altitude is secondary. So does that mean I can suck it down a little more, because I still plan to pull?" And if you are a student starting to spin in freefall, and it is getting worse, it seems that #2 is more important -- I'd better wait until the right altitude to pull, rather than pulling now before I get spinning really fast, because #3 pulling while stable isn't that important. While I'm getting a little silly with it, the gaps in the logic of the three rules are pretty wide if you look for them. At least the USPA SIM does put a simple version of the rule up front, before getting into the confusing set of three: [2008 SIM, didn't check for 2009]

Hope the new ones have sturdier shells, as not cracking open all the time also improves water resistance. Seemed that a lot of people broke the housing of the old ones.

As has been said, there are two camps in the reply to that. Something not always mentioned in those discussions is the type of parachute. It seems pretty normal for me to have a student assist with the flare under a Sigma, with high toggle pressure, but I'm more careful about selecting the students when under a light toggle pressure Precision / Icarus. Toggle pressure affects "how much damage" the student can do.

Haven't seen that one. Skypuppy has jumped a Cobra that came from Frank Arko, but it was plain red and white. From Frank I got a hold of a few old reserves, a couple Mk 1 PCs, and a PS-06, some of which might get sold or traded around. I've got a line on some other old timers' stuff from elsewhere too, a couple Top Secret rigs with Stratostars, but I don't personally need them. Skypuppy also got one of the Belvedere PC's through 'Froggy' Lalonde. I wasn't dealing with Frank directly, so it isn't clear to me whether he really was clearing out the last of his stash from the old DZ, or whether there's some other gear somewhere. The Para Sled is the most interesting find, so between I, Skypuppy, and Beatnik, we may get it airborne again. Figuring out a bag and container for it will be interesting, given its huge volume.

Opinions differ, but I'll still argue that maniacal laughter is one possible appropriate response, in the immediate aftermath of a dangerous event, showing relief at not having people getting killed, getting oneself killed, and not having the plane go down. Panicky? In the sense of exhibiting great fear of something, yes. But not in the sense of "unreasoning, irrational behaviour" as a result of fear. I haven't watched the video for some time, but I think the instructor searches the normal places for the knife to be, searches the glove box too, inquires with the pilot as to the knife's whereabouts, and tries to signal the student. Every one of those are appropriate actions ... even if done at a frantic pace and a voice at a higher pitch. Given what he had been dealt with, is there anything better he could have done, at that very moment that the student hung up? I could see an argument for him slowing down a little, which in some situations could lead to actions being done more successfully than when trying to do them very quickly. But that's easy to say when sitting at the computer and not having been there. P.S. - At least the instructor will have his own "scary stories from the old days" to tell years down the road. Nick has his share already!

That Para Sled is what I must have, from a small stash of stuff I got indirectly from retired Coldwater DZO Frank Arko cleaning out a few items. The attached photo isn't all that useful, but it shows the whole canopy loosely laid out on its side rather than just a little piece of it as in the earlier photos. Nice story about Steve West. I apprenticed with him as a rigger after the last rigging course he gave before he went in. Doesn't scare me at all... because I'll probably give it to Beatnik! (It has a slider now, so that should change things.)

This isn't like Howard White's threads -- while I have my own guess I don't actually know the answer. The canopy is a 5 cell that uses heavy fabric and is lined with 550 cord. Before it was taken out of a garbage bag I thought I was looking at a Para Commander. The photos show: -- a crossport that it lined with binding tape - as an example of how massively heavily the thing is constructed -- large flares for line attachments -- a seam along the center line, going to the trailing edge, that reduces the airfoil thickness to zero over the last foot of chord - as if to separate the left and right side control surfaces Origin: A Canadian demo team, canopy sponsored by Belvedere cigarettes.

It is a little confusing just what Jump Shack uses. In any case, heavier braided dacron closing loops can be really nice -- just from personal experience. The dacron isn't as slippery as spectra, it seems to wear better, the loop doesn't get as 'soft' as spectra does when it wears, and the loop has more strength than the usual type IIA sleeving (which is actually nylon). I'm also not sure about the Jump Shack stuff. I've tried the type IV nylon sheathed line -- I think that's the type IV Jump Shack refers to. Ironically I don't even see it in their own on-line rigging supplies shop. That line is quoted as 750 lbs, but one pulls out the internal strands, with the strength of the sheathing being unclear. It's not in Poynters as best I can see. It is still a heavier closing loop than the usual type IIA sleeving.

Re: sunglasses Try it and see. For some it is OK, for some it isn't. Plenty of people jump in sunglasses, whether expensive Gators or cheap sunglasses that just happen to fit snug on their particular face. Convenient to keep the same eyewear on all day and have more sun protection all the time. For others, the amount of air that blasts in around even snug glasses is uncomfortable. I for example only wear sunglasses for hop and pops and use skydiving goggles for longer delays.

Great but wish they had also scanned the descriptions of the photos that would be inside the cover...

Yeah it is almost more an exercise in rigging. One might learn enough by taking up a medium sized canopy, popping one toggle after opening, getting comfortable with handles touches while it accelerates into a spiral, and getting on toggle or riser to stop the spiral. That won't help with the "back in freefall part", but will help with the "oh my god everything is spinning" part.

The one block vs. 8 block explanation is still a simple way. At terminal velocity, with speed unchanging, drag has to equal weight to balance things out. (Otherwise like in a vacuum the object would keep on accelerating.) That one block has 1 unit of drag area per unit of weight, while the 2 by 2 by 2 set of blocks has 4 units of drag area for 8 units of weight. So that big "doubled in size" Star Trek Borg cube of eight blocks have half the drag per unit weight compared to the single block. Which would be the same as having individual blocks that are streamlined to halve the drag. That's why if an ant falls off a tall building, it floats away and gets lost, a mouse bounces and runs off, a cat sometimes survives injured, a human ends up with cops and yellow tape all around, and a whale splatters. Not that I've actually tested this... Or to hit them with another equation, we know weight equals drag at equilibrium terminal velocity. Meanwhile the basic equation for drag is: Drag = 0.5 * Air density * Velocity squared * Area * Drag Coefficient When weight is doubled, the value of the drag equation has to double too to stay in equilibrium. Given the same shape object (same drag coefficient basically), the drag area has to double. But in our 8 block case weight is up 8 times, but area presented to the wind is up only 4 times. So the only thing that can happen is velocity squared doubles .... the eight blocks end up falling 41% faster. (Root 2 = 1.41, in case the class can't hack that math.)

This is still a great thread that deserves to continue... Another crap canopy I jumped, when I was a novice, was a National Renegade. While it was F-111, it should have flown well, being a high aspect ratio (3:1) 9-cell of 232 square feet. But the flare felt mushy and it wouldn't shut down very well on landing. In low wind even a hard flare left me running and stumbling across the ground. I later heard there was a brake line mod to make them land better. Somehow I don't think National ever figured out square canopies. Their Cobra 10's blew up, the Renegade didn't flare well, and I almost never heard of anyone using their ram air reserves. ------------------- A couple people in the thread mentioned cursed canopies. I didn't jump it, but I know a Fury reserve that has mal'ed twice. One time a line wrapped around one of the A-line slider stops on opening, distorting the canopy. The stops are relatively exposed on those designs due to lack of stabilizers on the reserve version, combined with the flare type line attachment. The jumper borrowing the gear got down OK with a bunch of opposite brake. This was only the second time Flight Concepts has ever heard of something like that happening to one of their canopies. One might suspect the rigger, who despite being methodical was pretty new at cramming canopies into freebags, but it still seemed to be unusually bad luck. Then a couple years later, a student hums it down in freefall while spinning, it's a no-pull, the FXC fires at a thousand feet, the canopy has a tension knot. She doesn't know enough to try to clear it, nor even really counter steers. Probably in a bit of a daze, she spirals down in a steep dive ... into a single line of trees separating two open fields. She hangs up in a tree and has nothing more than a couple scratches, although is mentally a little messed up from it all. The rigger was experienced and precise, so there's no reason to suspect the pack job. There was nothing about that reserve that was unusual or worn. And yet, nobody wanted to see it packed up again... so off in a corner it went...

Since the Piglet is from Para Innovators, and that was Asciutto's company, the '74 data matches up nicely with the introduction of the Piglet (at least, the earliest number listed in Poynter's). I looked up Asciutto's patent: 3,940,095. Filed in '74 and accepted in '76. While understanding convoluted patent language takes forever, the drawings show full stow diapers with both a lengthwise 3 locking stow system, and a crosswise 2 locking stow system. The idea of a diaper could follow from a Para Commander sleeve -- the bottom portion is almost a loose full stow diaper that hasn't been sewn to the canopy. As for Strong, Poynter's shows that his first 26 ft LoPo model, of "circa 1973" was diaper deployed. That fits with what Lodestar wrote. Strong's line equalization diaper wouldn't have interfered with Asciutto's patent. Poynter's shows the National Phantom 24 and Pioneer K-XX, both with diapers, being introduced in '81. Some Pioneer reserves had Reuter wraps in the mid 70s, but then authorized a diaper in '81 as well. It all fits with the year where Asciutto released his interest in the patent. Even if it benefitted the sport, one wonders why Asciutto did what he did with the patent, instead of licensing it for a reasonable fee -- as others have done with direct line attachment parachutes or 3-rings.

For some of the later round main canopies like the Sierra, Starlite, Piglet, and even the RW PC, how were they reefed and deployed? Did people stick with sleeves, or were they starting to put rounds in bags when trying to have light weight round mains? To what degree were diapers used? I'm also hazy on when diapers started to be introduced, whether for round mains, round reserves, and also a couple square mains. Later Starlites had sliders I've read, as an additional reefing aid. Poynters notes for example that the Strong LoPo reserve first got diaper instructions in '79, while plenty of new round reserves at the start of the 80s got diapers right from the start. One version of the Piglet main is stated as being diaper deployed and originated in '74 - Was a diaper on it already?

Just as another data point, I have seen a knot with a plastic tube handle. Who knows of course how carefully the bridle & pilot chute were packed, or how well the pilot chute was thrown.