pchapman

... or possibly deliberately somewhere short thereof. I hope Mr Booth and friends will have a less controversial trip!

Hop n pops have always been fun. It used to be that just exiting from an airplane and opening your parachute was about the simplest, newbie thing you could do in skydiving. But now you can look all fearless and badass just by doing that! You can nonchalantly step out of a Cessna at two thousand or twenty-five hundred while others are whimpering about the low altitude, their snivelly canopies, or how they really want 4000' so they can deal with their removable deployment systems... (I'd never have gotten a reputation for "taking it low" if I had been skydiving in the 70s. Too much serious competition in that field back then. Now all you gotta do is pull at a legal altitude.)

Skydive Toronto (Cookstown, ON) has 6 widebody C-182's, up-engined and with wing extensions. Usually in summer they are running 4, +1 for spare/maintenance, +1 rented out. In '08 there weren't more than 2 plane RW formations done, but in '07 we had someone keen to organize so we made a bunch of 3 or 4 plane 'big way' attempts. The best we got was 15 of 16 with the local jumpers available. But with the daily grind of tandems it wasn't possible to set aside a particular weekend for that sort of thing; it was still eked out on those occasional first loads or last loads. Getting enough pilots trained up for larger formations took a lot of DZO effort. It wasn't like having a turbine, but it was fun.

The psychology of the feedback also has application to skydiving. Winsor may have been particularly defensive at that early point in his aviating, but it could also be that the criticism he got made the others feel better while just making Winsor angry and defensive, without really helping him understand the situation. Sometimes criticism is hard to take when one's efforts to do things right aren't recognized, even if the efforts were amateurish or insufficient. Winsor could say at the time that he flight planned properly, had a legal night VFR forecast, and as soon as he encountered poor weather, used his panel training to 180 and divert. He might wonder why all the fuss because even in professional airline service, aircraft sometimes have to divert for weather reasons to their alternate destination. The point should have been impressed on him at the time that while he was careful to be legal and not just out busting regs, his decision making took him into a nighttime weather situation that is particularly dangerous for pilots. Winsor should still have been praised at the time for some of his decision making -- a check of weather reports, a decision to 180 immediately, and an early decision to divert. Criticism will help more if it is specific about what was good or less than good, even if we still want to retain the right to be able to call someone a dumbass from time to time.

One should note that some of the historical ripcord deposit prices are way out of line with the current cost of handles. If one is using a D-ring metal handle, the handle itself is $39.50 at ParaGear! That's just for the handle, not a whole ripcord. The DZ can save some money if it has a press to swage together the pin, ball, handle, and cable. (My DZ has a press built out of angle iron bolted and welded together, plus a cheap automotive hydraulic jack. The dies are then the part of the system that has to be the most carefully engineered. And my DZ is lucky to have a pile of old handles left over from old scrapped rigs.) Obviously prices come down with quantity purchase ($31.50 for 20+), and one can surely find a cheaper supplier. Still, it isn't sufficient these days to tell someone in a less rich country outside the US to "charge the students 20 bucks deposit".

It is useful to see that definition. You emphasized "certificated parachute rigger" and then I emphasized "can involve". So it is just saying that riggers are part of parachuting operations in general. I don't see that it says that riggers are responsible for all actions involving the rigs they packed (including pouring battery acid on them) during the 120 or 180 days. I'd only believe that if one could find some language that stated that everyone involved in the operation were responsible for everything being correct at all times -- sort of like the pilots being responsible for jumpers' rigs being legal when conducting parachute ops from their plane. (Which we know is silly but that's the way it is written. Then it is another matter whether in practical terms the pilot would face any sanction -- probably not for an expired reserve on a jumper that they didn't know about, maybe yes if letting people do chuteless or non-TSO BASE rig jumps from their plane.)

I don't know that that would meet the letter of the law. It's an approved single harness dual parachute system that is required in the FAR's Now I thought the "single harness" thing was just to distinguish it from a "double harness", i.e. a tandem rig to take 2 people. If that's right, then the FARs don't say anything about wearing two harnesses (or more). Just that if you are jumping, you need a minimum of one harness with 2 parachutes (plus all the appropriate certification.) (I'm not arguing that I'm right; just discussing the issue.) All of us know that that makes sense. But do the FAA rules require that? Just wondering what rule or combination might require it. FAA rules say something about what you have to exit the aircraft with. Would it perhaps be covered by statements about conducting parachute operations, which would presumably last until the landing? Then one could jettison part of ones single harness dual canopy system only in case of emergency, which is what people do when they have a mal. But then, could one ever do an intentional cutaway on one's normal main to one's normal reserve, in one's normal rig? Even if one had an approved military harness with belly mount reserve on, legal for an emergency jump from a plane, one would still not land with a complete 'single harness dual parachute' system, as would be required for a non-emergency jump. Still trying to understand what is technically legal.

Soft loops, center pull handle, anti inversion netting... all sound good to me. But using spring loaded pilot chutes on belly mount reserves, without cutting away? I though in the civvy world one wouldn't install a reserve pilot chute if one didn't plan to cut away. Or had thinking changed at some point? For airborne troops at low altitude did the saving in time outweigh added risk?

So what are the rules in the US if one wants to do an intentional cutaway on one's regular main and use one's regular reserve? (As opposed to playing with a 3rd canopy and chopping that, which has been well discussed here.) Have people been able to easily do an intentional to try out their reserve? (Where I am, in Canada, people used to just attach a military belly round to the front of the harness with separable rings, even if that didn't quite fit the official CSPA rules. Government rules don't cover the issue at all.)

Common understanding is that no certification is needed for whatever you want to wear, as long as you are already wearing one proper TSO'd rig. (This all only applies for a 3rd canopy to play with, as opposed to a 3rd canopy as a backup reserve when intentionally chopping one's main. There I'm not sure of the US rules.) For the 3rd canopy one can do all sorts of things, such as these in increasing order of complexity: - direct bag it. - hold the bag & PC while exiting back to wind (But a safer way is:) - add a pilot chute pouch and handle to the bag - build a front container that includes some parts from the main container that was chopped off the old rig that one used to create the second harness - custom build a front container

You mean because he didn't stow his brake lines after landing after a mal? I've seen that happen -- soft PD brake lines all fuzzed up after just one jump and then carelessly dumped in the gear bag without replacing the toggles. Or did the line catch the velcro some other way? At least one major company got rid of the velcro. The Wings rig, right? Other companies just don't seem to have bothered when the old way is simple and usually works, even if velcroless has advantages.

I'm a little concerned about the lack of risers on the harness rings of some of the rigs... especially when a lot seem to be BASE rigs. And the low chest strap placement for some of the more endowed ladies, while better visually, may not be appropriate for their comfort on opening. But I think I can forgive them a few technical inaccuracies.

...When you start saying how you "deserve" to do that tandem or video jump, more than does one of the part time staff members, as you are trying to survive on skydiving alone. ... Or when you don't want to let others aboard the tandem or video staff, instead of encouraging other jumpers to contribute to the DZ (and learn skills and make money for their own fun jumps), because you are a full time skydiver! You don't wish to dilute your income by allowing part timers with real jobs to ruin things by making money off jumping too. To which the part timers start wondering just who is ruining things. At least, all that is associated with a few who start considering themselves professional skydivers. (You said this would be fun, markovwgti. ) [I realize a DZ may need to make promises about who gets priority in order to attract someone full time. But depending on personalities and DZ practices there can be friction between the part timers and the full timers. I've been on both sides of this argument.]

Correction to my post: I rechecked my notes: Jimmy Hall is claimed to be the only person to freefall a production paraglider, not to freefall it terminal. In the little I've seen written by him, he claimed no more. He once wrote he had 13 jumps with no cutaways, before getting into other projects. Still, photos of his jump show that he was taking a good solid freefall, NOT deploying on the hill out the door with the pilot flying extra slow. So they were still high speed deployments!

Actually from what I've read, Jimmy Hall was supposed to be the only person to have taken a paraglider to terminal, as opposed to all the slow speed direct bagging from helicopters, ultralights, etc that has been done. He did use a slider and wrote that he was blowing lines regularly, as the canopy hadn't been relined. Photos show him backflying with the huge canopy bagged in his lap before deployment. The high glide canopy idea keeps on coming up but never seems to go anywhere. PD experimented with the idea a decade back, and there was that French Nervures canopy but one never heard more about it later. As for shooting down cool ideas, well, people tend to do that when you have 48 jumps. An interesting project but a lot of issues to deal with too.

You're right. Yet while it is part of a discussion about Dec 19 changes specifically , the question & answer paragraph reads as if it could apply at any time in the future. The debate continues.

That document says that it is OK for riggers to pack up a reserve where the AAD or battery will expire before the 180 days, although it strongly suggests the rigger write down those limits. While the USPA is not guaranteed to be correct about everything FAA related, this still goes against the theory that masterrigger1 had been proposing.

Slightly odd risers indeed. There's probably some other explanation, but those risers with 3 legs to them would work for a ParaFlite Evolution, that had spanwise cascades and used similar risers with 3 legs. The middle riser would connect to the B lines only, and the dive loop on it would make it easy to do a B-line stall (as it is termed in the paragliding world) - a relatively controllable stall with the wing staying roughly in place and not collapsing. Or, pulling on one side only, as described in the Evolution manual, would produce a very quick turn. While putting those risers and an Evolution together makes sense, I'm not sure why such a nice new looking set of risers would have been put together with an old, rare, quirky, out of production canopy like the Evolution. I suppose one could use those same risers with any continuous line canopy without cascades. (Like a Xaos, right?) But why, I'm not sure. Pulling the front riser dive loop on such a 3 riser system would only pull down the A lines, not the A and B like on a normal setup. Pulling just the A's makes it very easy to tuck the nose under. It's all fun and games with a moderate sized Evolution up high, but deadly down low if one wanted to use front risers to set up for a swoop with a tiny canopy. (And yes the term "triple risers" has confusingly been used both for risers with 3 full legs, and those that have the brake lines coming off an offshoot on the normal rear riser. I'm not sure if clearer terminology is available.)

Better in Florida nearer the equator than in the UK. And when someone has a turn on landing, maybe it can be blamed on coriolis forces. :) But seriously, to add to the other useful stuff in the thread: A PLF is handy when there's vertical speed to dissipate, if you drop it in from some height. Slides are good for taking care of horizontal speed, unless the terrain is uneven enough that you might catch a foot and break an ankle. But to slide you do have to be down low, not planed out a foot above the ground. You need to be down where you lift your feet a bit and then just put them down for ground contact. Keeping the plane out low avoids both any vertical drop at the end, and allows for a low body center of gravity so you don't pitch forward while trying to slide with feet out in front. (Or if you are the stage with a canopy where you can't guarantee the plane out is at a precise height, X inches off the ground, you can pretty much plane out but with a very gradual descent so that some time during the flare process you get to the desired height and finish the flare.) It is hard to run out a landing if you have any significant vertical velocity on landing -- If you touch down running, one foot touches first, and it will take a lot of the vertical energy shock on its own. Easy to hurt yourself that way. A slide also allows for a more gradual transition from flying to not flying. As weight transfers to your feet from the canopy, you are effectively loading the canopy less, allowing it to keep flying to a lower speed. As for getting your rig dirty in a PLF, if you really need to, you just do it. Better than slamming in on your wrists and face as people do when they are unprepared for whatever excess speed they have on landing. I'm not sure how to best describe it, but getting ready to twist on landing is helpful. You need to twist if you are going to PLF rather than fall face forward, and if you are going to slide it in, you need to do it to be less likely to drop it straight in on your tailbone and spine.

The "marionette" problem! For the orig. poster: Having a loosened chest strap also helps get your body more upright while the canopy is behind you during the flare. A loose chest strap is not just for cool swoopers. (But someone new should get a briefing on loosening the chest strap because there are a couple small concerns about distraction or cutaways after opening.)

Yeah the simple approximation method only works when dealing with low probabilities, and few enough repetitions that the cumulative probability stays low. So it is close enough if one looks at 2000 jumps and 1/100k jumps having the bad event happening. But it doesn't work for your example, as you showed, for 100,000 jumps because it gives a 100% chance of the bad event happening. (And 200% for 200,000 jumps...) Nor does it work for coin tosses, where we're talking about large chances of a chosen event happening. After two coin tosses, the chance of getting heads at least once clearly isn't .5 * 2 = 100%. So there are plenty of cases where one has to use the proper way to calculate the theoretical risk, e.g., using the chance of staying alive per jump to the power of the number of jumps = the chance to live through every jump. For some more fun philosophy of risk, one can think about the risk per participant per year. If you normally jump 100 times a year, what do you do if one year you can only make 10 jumps. Do you figure you can pull low and hook it irresponsibly, because you can be 10 times more dangerous per jump and still maintain your comfortable average risk per year?

What you are thinking of is this: Chance of getting killed 1 in 100,000 per event (=jump). Therefore chance of not getting killed is 0.99999. To make 1000 jumps, you need to get "not killed" 1000 times in a row. So it is .99999 for one jump, times .99999 for the next jump... and so on. (Like a coin flip: .5 to get heads. So to get heads 3 times in a row it is .5 * .5 * .5 = 1/8 chance.) So for the jumping, it is .99999 to the power 1000 = .9900497 to not get killed. Subtract that from 1.0 for the chance to get killed, = .00995 = 0.995 % chance. This is very close to the approximation where one just multiples 1 in 100,000 by 1000, equals 1 in 100, equals 1 %. The approximation only works when calculating events that are highly unlikely. (When one gets into calculating something like how many malfunctions will I have in 2,000 jumps if people have a mal on average 1 in 500 jumps, that's a little different. One can still look at the simple average and say "4" as an approximation, but the real math gets a little messier, into binomial theorem stuff, because one is looking at the number of mals, which can vary, not whether or not one has a mal at all. In the death case, one only cares if one gets killed once as that puts the stop to further chances of jumping and getting killed again...)

I hesitate to get involved in this as there are so many factors, and the subject has so often been discussed before. Look for the USPA annual fatality summary published in their mag, The Powerpoint version may be online. They show some info on the number of jumps per year in the US, as well as fatalities. (Just watch for the issue of students vs. non students in the numbers.) Lately the 1 fatality per 100k jumps sounds like a reasonable starting point. If a somewhat active recreational jumper makes 100 jumps per year, that's a 1 in 1000 chance of getting killed per year. (Yes statistically one can't just multiply like that, but it is close for small probabilities.) Over 20 years of skydiving that's 1 in 50, or 2%. While not like a lifetime of Himalayan mountaineering, that's still appreciable. One might choose not to go to a restaurant if one knows someone is going to walk in and randomly kill one of the 50 people inside. One in 50 also gets into the territory of "someone you know is going to die in the sport" if one is around long enough. Sure one can say one won't be like the average jumper, but there are those risks that are hard to avoid -- aircraft crashes, hit from behind under canopy, and so on. Also, just about everyone thinks they are going to survive their next swoop... but some don't. We are all stupid at some point, so it is hard to expect the stats to not apply at all to oneself because of how smart and safe one is. (Not to be fatalistic... one should still try to be better than average.) As for comments about statistics not "catching up": They sure do for cumulative risk. If the dice are fair the chance of rolling snake eyes on 2d6 is the same 1/36 as usual even if one has rolled a hundred times without, but the total risk of rolling snake eyes keeps rising each time you roll. While playing with a few risk numbers isn't what will keep one alive on one's next jump, and good data is hard to get, I think it is still worth looking at stats to get some idea in one's mind about the long term risks of the sport.

I'd guess 1200 fpm is reasonable, for only slightly turning flight with no brakes. Sharper turns are of course much faster, while hanging out in brakes can be quite a bit slower. (I've flight tested a few main canopies and was getting about 1000 fpm for big student stuff, 1200-1300 fpm for a 160 and 135, older squarish non-ground hungry designs, at say 170 lbs weight.) Even if I'm off on my numbers, your friend seems to have been a bit on the low side.

Thankfully, no. :) I suppose some riggers have gotten used to packing those Raven MZ's? Since ZP front skin BASE canopies exist, it isn't out of the question that ZP last chance parachutes can be packed neatly. It's just that personally I haven't seen or repacked an MZ in a decade. (My question is separate from the original poster's question, although it fits under the subject of ZP reserves in general.)