pchapman

I hope people will qualify their answers because so much depends on what one is used to as being "normal", what issues they'll accept or not. If you always fly a Sigma, when you jump a Precision you might say it sucks because the opening are ugly and snappy, and the canopy feels mushy in turns, making one wonder how it will behave in turbulence. Not to mention not liking the non-stretch Vectran lines. (Although other lines are available.) But if you jump the Precision, and try a Sigma, you might say it sucks because it just doesn't shut down on landing as well and it is ridiculously heavy on toggles. Not to mention not liking the huge dacron lines.

I'm interested in hearing replies to this too. I've only had one Sigma reserve ride but I'm guessing the difference in openings depend on a lot of things: chance, speed, position on opening, perhaps suspended weight, and the jumper's awareness. Position on opening: If the tandem pair are opening off the vertical, maybe flung out to the side from a spin and especially using a Skyhook, then the canopy won't be in a stable above-the-jumpers position to start with. A little bit of surging then gets the whole edge-of-stall and recover motion going. Do people find it is worse on higher speed openings? I could see that happening. Jumper's familiarity might have a small role too, as to what they report. I occasionally jumped a Parafoil that did the surging thing on opening, but I barely noticed it, since I'm comfortable with stalls and got on the brakes quickly -- "yeah it rocks, big deal". But another jumper, with less experience, was weirded out by what to him was a really scary opening.

Interesting. On the rig I have, the leg throw out looks original. However, there's still a slot between the padded part of the backpad, and the actual container & webbing, at the lower right, small of the back. So it creates a pouch between the two layers. I don't know why it is there, but it would be perfect for keeping a stash bag if doing a demo or landing off.

I don't have any decent photos yet but here's a video capture and a shot on the ground. The couple real double keel dactyls I have seen have nice if muted colour schemes, browns and whites, blues and whites, but this Sensor thing has alternating blue, pale yellow, and red -- one of those messy color schemes of the day. I was also asked about the rig the Sensor came in: An Advanced Air FFE-102 'Handbury rig'. Features on this 1980 model include: -- a Cordura leg throwout pouch (with velcro closure), -- an SOS reserve/cutaway handle plus a separate little cloth loop if one wants to pull the reserve only, -- plastic stiffeners in the riser covers/side flaps all the way down the side (which seem unnecessary and have deformed over time) -- chest strap and belly band (unusual by 1980 I'd think) The rig is very nicely padded, and has quite good riser protection for the day. I'm not yet using the rig since I'm not a huge fan of non-diapered, lines-in-pack-tray 35 year old reserves.

A quick and simplistic answer is: Basically at first one didn't cut away; one opened the reserve on one's belly (with no pilot chute) and tossed the canopy out past the malfunction. Later on, especially with higher performance rounds that could spin up more during malfunctions, one cut away with Capewell releases, large and heavy metal release mechanisms at each shoulder. One had to pop open a cover on each, put a thumb through a heavy wire loop, and pull, one hand at each shoulder. A lot more involved than pulling a single handle.

[Accidentally put this in Gear & Rigging, which would work, but deleted it as this was the forum I meant to post in.] On a web forum for a DZ I read the following about a double keel Paradactyl a fellow once owned: I understand that that the single keels (which I've jumped & stalled) are nasty and didn't have a good reputation, but the double keels were docile enough that a school used them for AFF students. I've asked around a little and haven't yet learned anything more about the Sensor. Anyone remember much about Ross Witte, or Advanced Air that made dactyls previously? I just purchased that Sensor canopy from an old guy's closet and notice that it is a little different than the double keel dactyl that Jim (Beatnik) Wilson owns. The Sensor: - has only 2 cascades on each brake line, not 4 - has no slots on the canopy, whereas there is one on each side before the aft panel on the d.k. dactyl. - has 4 panels side to side in the center lobe, versus 6 - Also, I haven't yet seen any manufacturer's label on it at all The Paradactyl has a bit of a convoluted history, which I'm unclear on too. I have a manual labelled as being from Handbury, and a different one from Guardian. Poynters No. 1 shows the 'dactyl under both Guardian and Advanced Air, the latter owned by Handbury and Douris at one point. Bit late unfortunately to ask Gary Douris. It's interesting that his Free Flight Enterprises has continued to use the Pterodactyl logo from the Paradactyl days. In Poynter's manual No. 1, the Paradactyl is also listed under Pioneer. Perhaps they too got a license to build them. Was that the case and did they ever do so? I got to jump my Sensor for the first time today. Due to lack of time to do a proper test jump, I just took it up while doing my last tandem video of the day. It opened quite solidly but not uncomfortably at terminal. The thing flew nicely but needed a lot of spiralling to get down before my tandem... I've also been informed by Jerry Swovelin about how the double keels can get into a stable backwards flight mode, even with toggles up, which can be recovered from with front risers. I've never seen a manual or any official printed matter for the double keel dactyl. Any more info on the dactyl, double keels, and the Sensor would be appreciated.

Hi Krip, I'll think I'll wait with photos until I get the canopy back in the air. But I'm sure I'll post at some point, and ask some questions too.

I'm trying to contact him. Based on a couple clues out on the web, he's an old timer, ex-Marine who skydived in California and maybe Elsinore in the 80s. I wanted to ask him about about an old rig I just bought from someone's closet, a rig which was originally his. (Advanced Air Handbury rig with a double keel Paradactyl main.)

I don't know of anyone regularly doing CRW near Toronto, although I really don't know for sure what's happening at every DZ. A couple guys at Burnaby got Tri's this year and did some CRW. (One is Brettski74 on dz.com) A few at Skydive Toronto use mostly old rigs with Fury's etc for CRW occasionally but are usually busy slinging tandems etc. There are a couple experienced guys and a few with less experience. (We managed a couple of 7 stacks last year but this year haven't done much at all.) There are one or two experienced CRW guys at the Parachute School of Toronto, and one has taught a few others, but they're usually just using the rental Sabre 190s etc with Spectra lines; hardly ideal.

Anyone able to fill in a little more about him? I only knew him in his early skydiving days in Canada (e.g. at Skydive Toronto), with the occasional visit later on back to Ontario. (e.g. working at Skydive Burnaby at least one summer or something like that.) His tone could be abrasive at times but even early on he was big on doing a lot of sewing work, leading into rigging. In recent years had a rigging shop or something like that at a DZ in Florida?

While you may be enthusiastic about the technique, it isn't exactly useful advice, telling someone who doesn't even know how to attach a toggle, to use a specialized rigging technique with a specialized rigging tool....

I still go for the "two-stage flare" as the best term for it. Obviously there's more to it than that. If one doesn't like that one can go too far the other way and call it an infinite stage flare, because in some zen-like one-ness with the universe, without rules and boundaries, man, it is a constantly varying dynamic maneuver. But that's so generic it helps nobody. And if one gets into landing stages, one could start adding more beyond just two: - the initial approach - that first planing out stage of the flare - the initial planed out stage - adjustment of the plane out to get to just the right height - finishing the flare to slow for the touch down or stop - the actual touch down (which may occur before finishing the flare if sliding out) But then we can argue about what is a stage vs. a sub-stage, a part of another stage... Just my personal opinion that while jumpers may reasonably discuss how to best teach flares, I don't think there's anything wrong with calling it a two stage flare.

For a quick fix, if the kill line has shrunk but isn't about to wear out, I've even just sewn a fold in the bag retainer strap between the bag and canopy. That effectively lengthens the kill line again when the pilot chute is collapsed.

To add to what Jan wrote, the size of the jumper might have an effect too. If something is a little misadjusted, with not a lot of slack, it can be worse when there's a big guy in the rig. I've seen that where a particular type of rig (non USA) had a couple two outs, due to a combination of factors but starting with an RSL that may not have been quite to spec. The rigs were fine for a long time, but very occasionally when a big tall guy was jumping the rig, all the tolerances and slack in the RSL system disappeared. It seemed to be worse when the main lift web adjustments on those rigs were extended, allowing a little more loading and stretching of the container area. (Something that might not even be checked when someone checks RSL slack.)

The noble tradition of empirical science! Very few photos are available of such events, for obvious reasons. Did the pineapple fall nice and straight? I'm wondering if the rough surface (plus tail) helped keep a fairly random, turbulent airflow over it so it would track somewhat straight, rather than building up any wing-like lift over smooth rounded surfaces. Meanwhile veggies that are a bit lumpy could more easily turn and create the sort of lift (in this case horizontal) that has them darting off in different directions every few seconds? I would guess the unbalanced forces would largely simply be from asymmetric shapes, with Magnus effect forces low if the spin rate stays small compared to the large overall speed. (I once went out with a pumpkin. Found it was good practice for an AFF instructor, as one really had to chase it as it darted around in random directions.) And then very smooth, symmetrical objects will also fall fairly straight? Can you comment more on the aerodynamics of freefall produce? It is somewhat lacking in my aerodynamics textbooks.

Speaking of little distinctions, I think Jan's point was that anything that acts as a ripcord stop can leave a floating ripcord attached to the rig, that can catch on and entangle with things. The problem of not being able to pull the pin out at all, I thought that was a more minor issue (because it really required screwing up the ripcord stop concept to have things go wrong)? I don't know that era well. Ripcord stops sound worse when you have a belly mount with a mushy MA-1, but Jan has pointed out (on her website) that it was entanglement with departing main risers that was often the issue. Personally I think Jan is overstating the ripcord stop issue for Vectors, but technically it is something that can be discussed.

As I think a tagline went, "nothing can possibly go worng" And they thought of having robotic female, uh, leisure models, well before Blade Runner had them.

A little more detail (and an absurd drawing of 'what happens when a chute gets tangled') is at http://www.newyorkinjurycasesblog.com/2009/08/articles/assumption-of-the-risk-1/thrill-seeking-skydivers-parachute-fails-to-open-instructor-saves-her-she-sues-for-two-broken-fingers/ From the information provided, in general I'm against the woman & her suit, but there's one interesting detail: While the description is hard to interpret, that plus the broken fingers thing suggest that whatever the instructor might have asked her to do, she may have reached back to support herself and grabbed the main risers -- which when released broke fingers. (Although I can make some guesses, I'm not sure what exactly the standing on knees or anything similar would have to do with a normal cutaway, so maybe there was something more involved.) Sounds like one of those things that students may unexpectedly do, that can be hard to prevent or even warn against. If an instructor later told the woman it was dumb to have grabbed the risers of the parachute they were jettisoning, she might well say she thought she was grabbing "the harness", something that is usually taught as acceptable. At least the media seems to come down on the side of skydiving in this case.

Jeffrey: The customer feedback from last week was from my friend -- he wanted to check with UPT before having anything posted. I think the response he got was rather noncommital, so thanks for your more extensive response here, that better shows that you've been keeping an eye on any potential issue from the start. Yes indeed. (While in some areas replacing closing loops all the time may be common, there are others where it is not, where inspection is relied on instead.)

I have one pic of the loop but the focus is off -- hard to get it just right and know that when taking the pic.

Nice job dealing with what you had. The title could have been a bit different -- it didn't give away that this wasn't just your usual "Hey guys, had my first reserve ride!" story. This was a real incident with weird and dangerous stuff happening...

It appears that the washer on the bungee for the new Sigma / Vector III staging loop can wear the reserve closing loop. The wear is at a place where it is normally not expected. The speed of the wear is unclear from my experience so far. It might become a lot worse if the sharp side of the washer is against the reserve closing loop. Details: A friend who is also a rigger noticed this issue on a Sigma tandem rig (after wondering about the possibility when first installing the bungee). The same might happen on a Vector III. When contacted, the factory said they are aware of the issue. For the Sigma / Vector III Skyhook mod from about the beginning of this year, one can add a bungee staging loop (hesitator loop) to better hold the freebag in place until the bridle stretches out. On UPT rigs, the reserve closing loop starts at a Cypres washer above the backpad, goes down through a grommet, across, and up through another grommet. The bungee is secured with a washer at that second grommet. So the washer of the bungee traps the closing loop against the grommet. My friend opened up a Sigma a few months after the staging loop was installed, to adjust the length of the closing loop a little shorter. Noticeable wear was found on the Cypres closing loop. It wasn't heavy wear but the loop was slightly fluffed up in just a few months. But it seemed worth noting because: a) Normally no significant wear of a closing loop is expected underneath the grommet at the backpad. b) On a Sigma it is less likely than normal for a loop to be pulled out for inspection. Because the loop goes down through one grommet and up through another, if a rigger happens to want to inspect the closing loop knots, the loop does not have to be pulled right out. c) This took place with the bungee's washer assembled with the rounded side upwards -- so the closing loop was trapped against the rounded side of the washer. Riggers have long known that sharp edges of washers can damage loops, so normally a washer would be put on a loop with the sharp side upwards, to protect a loop that feeds through it from a knot at the bottom. Therefore if someone followed normal rigging practice, because they didn't think about the implications in this particular special application, the wear on the reserve closing loop might be a lot more than my friend found. (The washer was the one that came with the bungee kit. I don't think it is any different than a regular washer, but I haven't seen it.) The online documentation on the staging loop mod says nothing about washer orientation. I'd like to hear what others are finding. Even if the wear is slow, it is an area to inspect regularly.

Yup, so we're OK.

How about a compromise, that both methods can apply, because some times it is also quite true that: You should not be spending all your focus and energy trying to force a student into the right body position when simply outflying them would correct the problem.

Funny you should say that, because later the same day...