pchapman

Not literally true but there is that element of truth as a sarcastic offhand statement. I really don't know the history of this but a quick list is: Jerry Loftis (while skysurfing) Rob Harris (while skysurfing but accident unrelated to the board) DeGayardon (not skysurfing) Laurent Bouquet "Silver Surfer" (not skysurfing) So they may have been out there pushing the limits and doing a lot of good skydiving, including pioneering skysurfing, but it wasn't usually skysurfing that killed 'em. [edit - corrected Harris info.]

It's an easy question for me as my DZ has had the good fortune to have zero fatalities in 35+ years. I tell the students to pay attention to what they've been taught ... so they don't screw up our good record!

Never got my glider licence. But I spent weekends as a kid camping at a grass airstrip where my dad was a glider instructor. And now I spend weekends at a grass airstrip skydiving. I find it curious how close in performance the bottom end of glider flying is to the top end of skydiving. My small crossbraced canopy flies about 46 mph in full flight, and obviously more in a diving swoop approach. A slow Schweizer 2-33 flown solo has a typical approach speed of 55 mph, starting the flare at 50-45 mph.

I've always wondered how one easily replaces the elastic for the mouth of the Wings Cordura BOC. I haven't looked at one closely lately, but it doesn't look like it is made for easy replacement. Most seem to last fairly well, but I've seen ones that are stretchier then a decent Spandex BOC, which is a concern when they grip the PC only at the mouth to begin with. With Spandex BOCs one can just remove the stitches and sew a new BOC on. Modern heavyweight Spandex (or Spandura or whatever) BOCs do last longer than the old thin ones did, so I've done fewer BOC replacements in recent years than I used to.

I'm a little confused on the angles and directions implied here. Why would it be much different than a normal downplane? As soon as separation is initiated, the jumper just swings down under his canopy as the canopy levels out. Due to the initial dive the canopy would temporarily plane out to less descent than normal descending flight. Or were you thinking more of a dragplane, say if there's a HUGE mismatch between main and reserve, like a 302 Parafoil and a PD113 perhaps? In any case CRW people do successfully drop the bottom person on a dragplane and they do avoid falling into their canopy. Sure I could see that because of the messed up body position one might spin one's body into line twists, if the reserve hadn't already twisted when it first came out, depending on how the 2-out happened. And there would be a chance of getting feet in the lines since the small reserve would be down low somewhere below the horizon, before one chopped.

Merry Christmas!

The Storm sure isn't being marketed as a boring 7 cell. Their max recommended wing loading works out to 1.8 for the Storm, vs. 1.7 for the good old Stiletto, and 1.6 for the Spectre and Sabre2. (This is for the 97 ft size only; I didn't check other sizes.) Obviously attitudes to wing loading have changed over the years but still this says something about their confidence in the design.

Idea: DECOUPLING REPACK and INSPECTION CYCLES: If there were data like Councilman24 discusses, we'd want to look at what aspect of the pack cycle is being evaluated. Are we thinking about: a) the ability of the reserve to open properly, b) the condition of the reserve in its pack tray, or c) the condition of the harness/container The limited info I've heard suggests that opening speed or reliability doesn't change much once the canopy has been packed for a while, and that isn't going to change much whether it has been packed 120, 180, or 365 days. Say that one accepts that. Then part (b) comes into play. One has to open the reserve container to look inside to see whether the tray is full of desert grit or swoop pond sand. If one is confident that the reserve container is going to be clean inside, what's left? It's mainly the condition of the harness/container. There's no need to repack a reserve to do a detailed inspection of almost all of the rest of the rig. The rig condition is a separate issue from reserve reliability. (Actual repairs of course tend to be much easier with the reserve out.) So the guy concerned with tandem rigs getting chewed up at a busy DZ may not actually be arguing for a 120 day repack cycle. He might argue for a 90 or 120 day inspection cycle, and a lot longer repack cycle. Theoretically one could have something like a rig inspection every 90 or 120 days for commercial equipment, and a full repack every 180, 240, or 365 days. That rig inspection may or may not include an open & reclose on the container (without a repack), although that creates issues in the current legal & operational environment. This concept is a bit radical and not about to be FAA implemented, but I think it is useful in understanding some of the different feelings about repack cycle length. If there is concern over long repack cycles, especially for commercial gear, a DZ (or the USPA) could create a formal inspection cycle that is shorter, which does not include a full repack.

Maybe you're getting fooled by your instrumentation? Vertical speed measurement gadgets do have some limitations due to the messy airflow they can be in. For example, for short breakoff tracking after RW, my Protrack mounted outside my Protec helmet typically shows a big rise in speed up to 150 mph or the like. This is clearly a temporary artifact of changed body position. (When I do long tracks for the whole jump I get sub-80 mph, so I know how to track.)

The second poster is right. A quick and cheap alternative I've used for customers is to slip extra padding in between the leg straps and their covers. Sometimes one can fiddle it in by hand, in other cases one removes and resews a short piece of stitching that keeps the strap and cover together at the lower end. But finding a source of thin padding might be tricky. I happen to have a very thin closed cell foam camping pad no more than 1/4" thick. That or thinner can work well. Yoga mats might be another type of source.

Riggerrob has come out east from time to time for a course, but not every year. Another jumper in Ontario went to Chicago for a course, and does all his rigging here in Canada under his FAA certificate. Despite the course, he still found it very useful to have apprenticed a little with someone here first. One minor issue is that he feels much more constrained to do things "by the book", because that's a requirement of the US rating.

Yes. Maybe we're both hoping someone else will spend the time to catalogue on a web page a list of all known problems the manufacturs have had, the dates, the manufacturers' responses, and so on. Even with facts, interpretation can be tough. Does Vigil get free reign to make mistakes for the next decade because Cypres already has made mistakes for at least a decade and a half? Both companies have had very recent bulletins and notices on inadvertent firing. At least Cypres produced their own bulletin. Vigil only wrote their "open letter" after the FFP told the world about the problem (even if there are politics involved.) But then Vigil claims both companies knew about possibly defective sensors from a supplier in 2006, and only Vigil acted on that information! An interesting battle. P.S. - Andre / erdnarob, I finally realized who I'm arguing with!

I dunno. Sounds like they just haven't updated the manual. Jeez, no big deal. I know you like a lot of precise technical detail. I trust you're not actually too surprised when manufacturer instructions conflict, state impossible things, are unclear about which gear they apply to, are unclear about the precedence of different publicationn, have confusing designations, are missing dates, show outdated techniques, show excessively restrictive techniques that nobody uses, and so on... (Yeah we could get into the fun argument about how FAA riggers in the USA must follow manufacturer instructions. So they have to pack a spare Cypres cutter into every G4, at the #1 flap...)

Similarly, I'd hope the atomic bombs weren't Vigil activated, just in case the flight crew slammed the cockpit hatch after climbing in. :) Despite Airtec's sometimes frustrating level of secrecy or unwillingness to admit problems over the years, my personal opinion is that they still seem to come out ahead of the Vigil in terms of reliability and doing what one wants them to do. Even if Airtec has secret parameters or secret potions, I still trust their algorithms, reliability, and engineering a little more than for AAD/Vigil.

Another thread where I added some ideas: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2866920;search_string=GQ%20security;#2866920 Plenty of interpretations possible as to whether the service lives are mandatory or just suggested, and whether new instructions apply to old products, and whether current company policies are different than old company policies.

[thread drift] You can pressurize a B-29, but the bomb bay is not pressurized. Hence the little tunnel with a cart for crew to transfer between the front and aft pressurized sections. [/thread drift]

Any special tips for dealing with that final heavy but smooth opening shock one gets with a ParaCommander? Just the usual need for low airspeed and good grips as with any Mr Bill? (I had a failed attempt last year -- too much speed after tumbling once after exit before deploying.)

Agreed. Try to fly first, adjust the student second. I've seen newbie instructors grappling the student and spinning or taking rather long to get to the drogue out, when they could have flown the tandem pair first. In skydiving in general, subtle movements are often required, to avoid overcontrolling and flailing, and to fine maneuver next to others. But in tandems, with all that mass to move, subtlety is often not required! Contort your body, stab out with the arms in an exaggerated way to grab air, kick a leg way out, whatever. There's a lot more control power available than some think they have. Use it all. And don't be in a huge hurry for the drogue toss. I've seen enough poor ones, with the instructor still somewhat on their side, or pitching rapidly. Wait until you know you are stable belly-to-the-wind, not just when you are coming up to belly-to-wind but still with a lot of rapid pitching motion.

Small old school RW: 3500, 2500, 1500 Sitfly or jumping with wusses: 4500, 3500, 1500 (So I keep a consistent 1000' between breakoff and a second alarm. If I were actually doing serious head down freefly, and really had a lot of speed to burn off, the gap between first and 2nd alarms could be greater.) Tandem: 6000, 5000, 2500 (Use the same group of settings for tandem video too, although the reasoning is debatable), (As for the last alarm: Just like 1500' is 500+ ft above AAD altitudes for solo jumps, 2500' is 500+ ft above AAD altitudes for tandem jumps.) If anything the greater breakoff altitudes these days lets one get pretty sloppy about being aware of altitude.

It's a homebuilt aircraft, to use the popular term, and formally should fall into the Experimental Amateur-Built registration category. Which means generally no commercial use is allowed. (I don't know the details. Certain minor exceptions exist, such as for training pilots to convert to that type of aircraft.) The engine is Czech just because that's a supply of well regarded turbines that are cheaper than what's available here. It's common for those engines to be used among the small circle of those who build homebuilts and can afford a turbine at all.

Hmm, good point about doubling back the webbing. (Do I even remember a photo of Marty Hoey's harness hanging empty, hooked up to a fixed line on Everest?) A few reasons: (and I might be missing some too) 1) In skydiving we often use US military spec hardware, or hardware that is similar to it. So to some degree the way it is done is the way it has always been done, and the hardware hasn't been designed for a fold back. 2) Leg straps and chest straps don't have clean ends, but have a fold pattern that should generally stop the end of the webbing from pulling through the buckle, unless one is deliberately feeding it through. 3) Skydivers want to adjust the straps more often. Someone might have leg straps loose walking to the plane, a bit tighter in the plane, snug just before the jump, and loose when walking after landing. The climbing fold-back is very secure but not easy to adjust.

Interesting to see the differences in terminology in different countries. Already mentioned were: USA "pack opening altitude" UK "opening" (with some variation in interpretation) In Canada for the CSPA it is the minimum altitude at which the "parachute must be activated". "Activated" could be interpreted different ways, whether it is first starting to pull the PC (only starting to activate it), or perhaps better, letting go of the PC.

One cause is the PC getting knotted closed, if the bridle entangles with it. That's similar to the example given about the handle getting caught up in the base of the PC. A knot could be from a bad throw, bad packing, or even just very bad luck due to the vagaries of airflow and parachute inflation. Attached is a photo of a PC as we found it after someone came down under his reserve. The bridle wrapping around the handle kept the handle below the rest of the PC, keeping it from effectively inflating. EDIT: Note the photo shows an entanglement on a PC with a lightweight tube handle, although it is of the more vulnerable center-attachment type, not with the attachment tape coming out of both ends, which might help reduce the snag chance.

Airtourer. The name just popped into my mind. No idea why. Knew it wasn't a British Bulldog. I looked at a lot of airplane books when I was a kid. Honestly only after thinking of the name did I check "Airtourer" in wikipedia to see if it might be right.

I notice the 1993-1994 Para Gear catalogue does show Glide Path Nova's down to 99 in size, and PD Sabres were down to a 97 minimum. Stilettos were advertised but must have been brand new as no sizes were listed yet. I don't know what time of year the Para Gear catalogue is published, but it suggests a few small canopies were available in 1993. Others would know better how rare it would be to actually find people flying such small canopies at the time.