pchapman

I've never been able to find a TC definition of parachuting , whether an aircraft has to be involved or not. The rules for UNCONTROLLED airspace are completely new. In the past one could jump from a plane in uncontrolled airspace without telling anyone; now one will have to have a 2 way radio and establish communications with ATC and broadcast the jump. TC certainly didn't tell us all this was coming! (Edited for typo.)

c): Good catch! The old 606.36 applied only where there was a Special Flight Operations Certificate (demos basically) - now it will apply to all jumping. EDIT: Also, the old section 623 of the CARs, that explains that Standards (rather than the Regulations) for jumping into controlled airspace with an SFOC, mention "wind drift drop or procedure". That way was flexible -- a "procedure" could be about anything to assess winds. So they changed their own terminology, which was fine as it was! d) Landing off has always been illegal in some sense... just that if it is "accidental" and you don't damage property and leave, you'll be OK. Not sure of the exact legal justification though.

Shropshire: If you do post paragliding stuff, you could at least explain what you are posting, rather than just providing YouTube links.

Although Andrewwhyte and Beatnik have different recollections of events and different interpretations, this has been useful to help recall some of the history of the whole regulation issue. Both CSPA and CAPS attended meetings, and I'm not too worried about exactly how many from each attended which meeting. For example, the Transport Canada Working Group regarding Regulations Respecting Parachuting Activities, met in Feb `98 and Mar `98 in Vacouver and Alberta. Both CAPS and CSPA had multiple people each at the meetings. Now that I`m this far I might as well add a little more history, although it is mainly info from the web, not knowledge gained in person. The TC Working Group was formed to look at the issue of regulations. A couple quotes from the Terms of Reference document: (at http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/carac/Technical/GOFR/WG/parachuting.htm) and The Working Group's final report is also online, at http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/carac/Technical/GOFR/WG/parachuting-fr.htm Their conclusions covered various matters, including rules that have gone into force, such as about radio coordination with air traffic control and demo jump rules. They concluded that in general, the skydiving industry knows better than Transport Canada about skydiving: Similarly, for students they wrote something which is still good today in the argument against NPA 99-148: Attached to the report is an Outline of Proposed Recommendations. About that they say: In that attached outline there are eight very short recommendations, pretty much all one sentence each. A typical one is "A rule requiring information about a parachute descent to be broadcast in advance." That sort of thing is what was concluded in the working group, has since been put into the regulations, and is accepted as reasonable. At the very bottom of the recommendations there is one on students: This is the one that is at the heart of the NPA 99-148. Notice that in the report itself they basically said, "everyone (whether from TC or skydiving) agrees that no new rules are needed for students". Yet at the same time they are saying that "everyone agrees with the attached list", in which #8 is that students must be trained according to the skydiving organizations' rules. That's the statement that seems so innocuous, supposedly changing nothing (just follow existing rules), but one that would change everything -- for all of us that fear that every single inappropriate rule or recommendation taken totally out of context will now be law. Unfortunately that item #8 does make CSPA & CAPS seemingly complicit in recommending the very thing that NPA 99-148 suggests! That sort of issue is typical of the whole regulation debate since the start of the '90s: The CSPA can say to the gov't that we don't need new rules because ours are good. And if there's an accident where rules weren't followed, the CSPA can say that we have little power to enforce our own rules. But what can the CSPA then say when the gov't replies, "OK, maybe your rules are good. Let's make them law." The implications of that statement #8 may not have been fully appreciated at the time, and led to NPA 99-148. We shouldn't forget that in the time between the Working Group's conclusions, and the present NPA fight, there was the additional meeting where all stakeholders (including CSPA, CAPS, and TC) concluded that the NPA's rules were not necessary. This was the Risk Assessment Committee meeting of May 2005. Their conclusions are being used as a major point against NPA 99-148. After 3 or 4 days the Committee concluded: (The source for is one one of Tim Grech's reports, on the CSPA email chat list, Sept 25, 2007.) When a meeting was held to set up an advisory committee in January 2007, that was when TC informed the CSPA that they were going forward with NPA 99-148.

Bill: She does say it is CAPS. That's in her profile. It's just that in the mini profile next to our posts, not everything is shown. So no need to get bent out of shape. Profiles aren't perfect. They don't, for example, show how many times one has been banned from an organization.

The loop does seem to 'snug down' better when it is looped onto itself (as is proper) rather than onto the slippery metal ring. I found the same problem as you, but with Aerodyne soft links on a RESERVE. I had thought the 'slacking off with no load' problem to be only theoretical -- but your example shows it can happen. In the case I found, assembly had been done by a quite experienced rigger but he hadn't seen the Aerodyne links before, didn't have the manual around, and forgot to double check the manual later on as he planned. It's a subtle error, one that takes a close look to notice. I only saw the error as the soft links had NOT been tacked down. Had they been tacked down they would have been quite difficult to inspect, and it might have sent the signal that they were supposed to be out of sight and thus not really inspectable. I personally like the ability to better inspect the links. (The Aerodyne Icon manual says to tack the links, but the Smart manual does not.) I think I posted pics of the case I found, in some thread in '06. Tacking the links might prevent finding an error, although it would also greatly reduce the chance of the loop slackening and coming off the ring. (A tack through the ring would technically prevent the loop from moving past and coming off the ring, but if the loop came past the widest part of the ring, on a shock loading one would be relying on the tacking only to hold it all together.) EDIT to my edit: Tdog -- So I get the impression the jumps were made before anyone got to check the reserve. When he did use the reserve, all was OK with it? (Either no Aerodyne links; or the links were done right?)

Edited from good old wikipedia: Part II ('the second publishing') puts regulations into law. Part III is the same for the bigger stuff, actual acts of parliament. The government Gazette page states: So for us in Canada, when dealing with aviation, it is generally like US pilots & skydivers dealing with an FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. You get a very limited period in which to make comments on the proposed rules.

Was there any well known employee at the Relative Workshop known as Bobby, in about 1991? A friend owns a Vector II, built in '91 that has a serial number of "Bobby". Yes, that's the serial number. It is also labelled as an EST-4 rig, a size that RWS / UPT say they never made and isn't on their sizing charts. Although the name could apply to the rig and not the owner, I'm curious whether it was built by or for someone at the company, who was on particularly good terms with 'the great bearded one'.

Link to previous discussion on NPA 99-148: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3123567;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

It makes one wonder what the canopy later smelled of...

I'd suggest "Slightly" is somewhat subjective. Not sure which way you are arguing this. Slightly above? Yes. And that's what the PD photo shows, although it is 'a good one', more than just a typical quick toggle turn. At first, the camera angle makes it look "a lot" above. You know how the whuffos on the ground look up to see people spiralling under canopy and ask how the jumpers are looping the loop...

- Packed in puddles on a tarp in the rain. Tough to pack when the fabric sticks to your hands. (I wasn't actually skydiving that pack job... Just taking it off the bridge at Bridge Day '04.) - Packed the round reserve in my first rig across tables in a free university classroom. Those who wandered by tended to not ask any questions. - DZ.commer "980" packed his crossbraced canopy in the 3rd seating row of a van while we were driving back from a stadium demo. The opening was a bit line twisty I heard, but it all worked out in the end. Doesn't count if there's no video? Well for that one I've got a photo.

Sure the ground is harder... but the snow can be soft! It is great fun to swoop into snow. It won't save you from a real dive into the ground, but you can screw around a little more than usual on landing. It has allowed a bunch of jumpers at my DZ to do belly sliding "superman" landings that one would be much more hesitant to try for the first time on grass. Of course, like with swooping a pond, the safety it brings can be lost when people push harder than normal.

I'm still in the "educate them" camp, rather than "mandatory rules" camp, even if it is hard to get through to some people. However, even if a DZ (the DZO, S&TA, whomever) is uncomfortable with preventing a person from jumping gear they bought, people will be more comfortable with the DZ using their power regarding landing areas. So the hotshot might be told that based on what people have seen of their landings, they are not approved to land at the pond, or may not swoop at the gates, or things like that. Restrictions could even go two very different ways: To force the person to land away from the normal non-swoop area if they are judged not to be heads up enough yet, or to force the person to land in the normal non-swoop area if the intent is force them to fly a normal pattern and not yet get distracted by trying to swoop hard. The preference for education over rules is "small town thinking", but also one based on observation in a smaller market: -- Nobody ever has canopy collisions. (Last one I recall hearing about in my region in Canada of at least half a dozen DZ's is about 5 years ago. Being at a C-182 DZ reduces but does not eliminate landing issues.) -- Rarely does anyone actually break themselves swooping (It's been years at the DZ I'm at that anyone broke anything, although earlier there were a couple femurs, an ankle, a wrist, etc. However, it is true that every year one hears of a couple people at other area DZ's breaking themselves up.) -- I consider myself fortunate to have been allowed to fly small elliptical very early, and don't want to dump on newbies now and deny them opportunities I had. (No canopy nazis back then. But I didn't jump the small canopies regularly, nor was there any thought of accelerated swoop landings. That makes a huge difference.) -- People keep talking about "take a canopy course". But that doesn't really exist unless one gets on a jet plane and flies a couple thousand miles. (Although one DZ in the province has started bringing in Brian Germain once a year. So far, that's an exception to what has long been normal.) Obviously this all clashes dramatically with what "big DZ" people are thinking and have experienced! It doesn't eliminate the desire for a more structured learning environment for flying a canopy, but reduces the need to start forcing people to do things a certain way. The funny thing (for those who disagree with all this) is that this year I got picked / volunteered to be in charge of canopy piloting education at the DZ. That kind of forces one to start making some decisions rather than playing the hands-off live-and-let-live (or live-and-let-die) strategy. It'll be interesting to see whether I actually get through to anybody or just end up with a dusty binder full of useful educational information….

What is being used these days for brake lines on canopies, especially on higher performance ones? Between it being winter and not having newer canopies around, I must admit I'm not sure what current practice is. Are companies pretty much sticking with the same type of line the whole canopy is done with, but obviously heavier? Eg, HMA for HMA lined canopies, Vectran for Vectran lined canopies? I recall one company trying Dacron brake lines on their HMA lined canopies. I've made Spectra brake lines for my Vectran lined canopy -- since it was convenient, and I know Spectra wear characteristics better, although I have to deal with the shrinkage issue (i.e., build everything an inch or two longer and let it wear down towards the ideal setting.)

1. The cutaway process is generally believed to be straightforward enough that simple ground simulation is acceptable. (We're not test flying a complex aircraft.) 2. It can be significantly more difficult to set up an in-air than an on-ground simulation of an emergency cutaway. 3. Certain parts (but not all parts) of the in-air simulation may not be that valid for training purposes, if handles are in different places. 4. In-air simulation of an emergency can create its own emergency. (An old topic in aviation - don't make the simulation of an engine failure turn into a real crash.) Despite all that, your final question ("Is more training needed to prepare you for the worst case scenario??") is sometimes answered with a YES. The on-ground simulation that people do is not always representative enough to make the task simple to do in the air.

For what it's worth, Rigging Innovations told me that the Flexon had 5 1/2" stows, which was typical for their rigs. However it sounded like there could be some even smaller stows, or larger 7 1/2" stows on some rigs -- but it wasn't made clear just what rigs would have that, or how rare those were. Factory advice of course is to contact them with the rig information if one wants to know for sure, and to buy pre-made stows from them.

Not hard for me to at least make a guess, given that I've seen some old videos from a Canadian cameraman... so I'll leave it to others...

It was Fast Eddie. I think you can see his well known helmet cover -- furry with animal ears.

Douglas A-26 Invader. Distinctive tail, lots of dihedral in the horizontal surfaces. This one would be some sort of civilian conversion, maybe from On Mark Engineering.

Just an odd photo - Static line students being taken up in a helicopter. This can't be common, especially in civilian skydiving. This was from early spring, in about 1987, at the Parachute School of Toronto, in its old incarnation at Arthur. The Arthur DZ was the biggest in Ontario at the time. They continued putting students out on round canopies until the owner retired in about 2001. For some reason when the grass runway was soft in spring that year, they brought in a turbine helicopter, although I doubt the economics worked out well. There appear to be 3 static lines hooked up. Who knows if they were first jump students, but the one at the door sure looks confident for a newbie sitting half out of a helicopter...

Like RiggerLee with his boogie experience, stuff sometimes accumulates at the DZ too. Maybe there's an older pilot chute and bridle that was replaced by some jumper. It really only needs a kill line replaced, but nobody wants to touch it, because somebody owns it - and nobody seems quite sure any more who it technically belongs too. Or I've seen rigs sit for years. I packed a rig one spring, it sat unused all year. Next year, the owner calls up, I pack it again, it sits all year. Two years later, it was still sitting there. I called the owner (the phone number was still right!) and he didn't want to sell, claiming that although his job had kept him busy, he'll be back that year. He never showed up. So at my DZ there are 2 1/2 rigs like that. At least one has a Cypres in it, with the clock ticking and its value decreasing. A couple of the rigs aren't all that fancy, but they would be great to put into service as downsizing gear. It's a real shame the gear is being wasted! Who knows, if DZ can get around to it, they might try again to contact owners. One can't just appropriate others possessions because they aren't using them. There are laws. But I have heard of rigging shops including in their customer contracts, clauses allowing the shop to either sell or keep gear that gets left too long, given appropriate notice to the owners. Consignment stores do something similar.

The upside-down-Ratbert guy (Unstable) wrote: I haven't done nearly as well in accumulating stuff in my basement. But there are chunks of cut up canopy, a cut up rig, pieces of cutaway cable, extra toggles, old d-bags and so on. They're a a good source for things to practice sew, or to integrate into little home rigging projects, or to rebuild to a modern standard. Ideally a rigger should also have an non-jumpable old round canopy, for an almost endless source of 550 cord. (For accessory cord, not actual closing loops, thank you.) Much of my rigging has been for a DZ, so the real junk is all in the DZO's storage trailer, an accumulation of 35 years of owning a dropzone. He's been tolerant of me "borrowing" the occasional thing, if it is given a good home -- like the ex-Golden Knights Mk 1 ParaCommander. What I am slightly embarrassed about is the number of canopies I own, even if there are people with plenty more. It was a surprise to tally up all the canopies. There are 11 jumpable main canopies (10 landable) plus four and a half rigs. (The cutaway harness counts as a half.) Cheap, weird, fun, or old? It's all represented...

Anyone know the proper size for a safety stow on a Rigging Innovations Flexon freebag? I'm inspecting a Flexon today and the factory is closed Fridays. The freebag stow grommets are on 4" centers, suggesting a shorter stow than many rigs.

It's been a couple years since I read that paper. I recall that by joking around it was making a point about certain tendencies in medical practice, which, if taken too far, end up being very silly -- as their proposal tries to demonstrate. For those that enjoy silly scientific style writing, two humour magazines are the Annals of Improbable Research and the Journal of Irreproducible Results. They have either fake scientific papers or papers on actual but very silly or useless experiments. The AIR is also involved in the annual IgNobel prizes for unusual or dubious research.