pchapman

Big complex issue but I'll give it a quickly written but lengthy try. We've seen the original NPA and have issues with that. We have no idea what the final version will be. It could have no changes, or major changes. We just don't know, although I'd bet that given the lack of further consultation with the skydiving industry, they'll just try to put it into place almost as is. It has been tougher to mount an opposition against it because Transport Canada never said, "here's our proposal, let's discuss it". It's always, "you'll see it when we're ready to show you", which will likely be when it is in the Gazette phase. Transport Canada already regulates skydiving aircraft in Canada. A DZ has to set up an operations manual, a maintenance control manual, agree on maintenance intervals, maintain a weight & balance program for loading the aircraft, do annual self reviews of operational issues, ensure there is annual retraining of pilots and staff, ensure there is human factors training, submit to the occasional audit every few years, and so on and on. In the US things are not as self regulated as they appear to be. The FAA has a lot more acutal parachuting rules than Transport Canada has. On the other hand, the FAA rules for aircraft maintenance and procedures are slacker than in Canada. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, depending on perspective. Largely volunteer organizations have issues with effectiveness and discipline. It is very hard to enforce rules, and as soon as the mudslinging starts, then there's plenty to go around and a lot of ill will occurs. The US has had some pretty serious infighting lately when it comes to DZ's that were being considered to be using unethical business practices. In Canada there was enough infighting in the '90s that some DZ's split and formed a sort of rival organization, that is now fairly moribund. The NPA (as it seems to be planned) basically makes all CSPA Basic Safety Rules and all Recommendations the law, where they pertain to student jumps. Theoretically that's nice, but when a rule is broken, now you are breaking Canadian law, not just the rules of the voluntary association. That increases the seriousness of it. If you're thinking about some other DZ, that you think is doing things poorly, maybe you'll applaud. But there are plenty of ways for even "good" DZ's to fall afoul of the rules. BSRs limit solo student jumps to 15 mph winds or less. Does every DZ always follow that rule? To what degree? Is it a problem if the wind goes over the limit for 1 second, 15 seconds, a minute? Is it always followed out on prairie DZ's with flat terrain and less turbulence? Has the DZ ever let advanced students jump even when they don't let the first timers go? Can an inspector walk in with a wind meter, and shut the DZ down while they investigate? It might not actually happen, but people would rather not have to worry about it. As much as DZO's might like a level playing field (by making "the other guys shape up"), I think they're afraid of being caught on some rule themselves. As a comparison, even if one didn't speed much on the roads, and wished the cops would get the really crazy drivers out there, one might not be happy to see a lot more traffic cops out there -- because they'll find you too, some place, some time, where you're thinking, "Come on, I'm hardly speeding, there's nobody around to hit, and the limit here is way too low anyway". Some BSR's get regularly broken. Consider the one about tandem jumps having to follow manufacturer's recommendations. Sure, in general that's a nice idea. But if you look at every little thing they recommend, you'll find almost any DZ in violation of something. With the NPA, they'll be breaking the law. (That could include not having an altimeter for first time tandem students, or not packing the way it is written in an outdated but not updated manual, or not following a manufacturer's very strict rules on who may video a tandem -- some rules that may work at Perris or Deland, but be really tough on a small Canadian DZ.) Some of the opposition to the NPA is just because people don't want more rules. Some is because they're afraid of the "thin end of the wedge". It sets a precedent to actually regulate the skydiving side of things. Some is unreasonable fear of TC swooping in and finding fault. And some is reasonable fear that there will always be some rule, somewhere, that one is breaking.

When I was new to jumping, there was one accident that continues to stick in my mind as a stark warning about why one should have a plan in mind. I can't remember the precise details (and I think someone else knew more about it on dz.com once) but this was basically the situation: As the Cessna climbs out, at say 1000' to 1500', the engine quits. "Bail out!" Jumper #1 bails and from habit goes to his main. Jumper #2 sees this and calls out a warning, "We're low, use your reserve!" He exits and goes to his reserve. #1 is OK but pretty low, #2 is OK but with more altitude margin. #3 bails out. Maybe he wanted to go for his main but heard #2's warning, so brings his hand to his chest and pulls. Nothing happens. So he goes back to his main deployment handle and pulls. Still no parachute. Too bad, his chest pull was with his right hand (the hand we almost always use to open a parachute) so he pulled the cutaway handle by mistake. When he activated his main, it flew away. Maybe he did then get to the reserve handle, but he impacted without anything useful out. #4 is the last to bail out, he's getting low, but he goes straight to his reserve and lives. The pilot, checking things in the cockpit, finds the fuel selector on the cockpit floor had gotten bumped to an off position, switches to the tanks, gets the engine started and flies back to the airfield normally. As if nothing had happened. Three jumpers and the pilot live, one guy couldn't grasp the situation in time and was dead. He didn't die because he was unlucky and was last out of a plane that broke apart, or spun in, or something else dramatic and deadly. He died for nothing at all. He just wasn't ahead of the game that one time that Fate decided to give him and his friends a little pass or fail test.

Just thinking quickly: One still needs to have some kind of wing to provide a decent glide ratio. One could add long ram air inflated tails or the like, or have other structures bulging out from the wing, but there's going to have to be enough undisturbed wing for it to act like a wing. I don't know much about kites, but all those kites shaped like dragons or whatever are far downwind of where the line is anchored ... not right overhead as for something with a high glide ratio. The angle from the vertical does relate to the glide ratio. Those kites with their super low aspect ratios (sometimes approximating a tube) are probably at well less than 1:1 glide ratio. Make them big enough and you could still jump them, but then you're basically jumping a round canopy, with a glide ratio of 0 or close to it. Guess you could build a round canopy with some special shape like the custom balloons these days... The closest I've seen to customized canopies is the stuff at the French Coupe Icare paragliding festival. While huge ram air costumes around the pilot are easily possible, only rarely is much added on to the lift-giving canopy itself.

Yeah we have to distinguish between canopies that are knock-offs in terms of "measuring all dimensions of the competitor's canopy and then tweaking", vs. just doing something similar for a similar market after the other guy started to be successful with a design. The latter might be termed a knock-off in casual conversation, but not be one in a stricter and more correct engineering & construction sense. And as an footnote to piper17's interesting history, I will note that the Evolution canopy also had only 3 line groups (A,B,C).... and it was made by Para Flite, although later than the other canopies under discussion. (Lest any one think I'm anti-Pioneer, my only canopy until '02 was a Titan and I jump a Mk I PC too.)

For the record, I understand the only terminal freefall deployed paraglider jump was by Jimmy Hall. For this, I'm talking about a paraglider designed purely for paragliding, not a crossover like what Nervures or Para Flite has. D-bagging paragliders has been done by many, normally at slow speeds (other paragliders, helicopters, ultralights etc). I don't know about higher speed d-bagging. That would get messier. (As for Jimmy's jumps in Hawaii: A few photos are up on a paragliding site. He wrote that he blew lines on every jump, having done multiple jumps. Presumably he didn't reline the whole glider beforehand with stronger lines. That's a lot of work. He had added a slider! I know of no video that is public. Although Jimmy is dead, I inquired with Ozone, the manufacturer of his paraglider. Someone there figured someday they might be able to get the video together and publish something.)

[Note that I'm commenting as a jumper in general, but not as one with any particular insight into jumpsuits for particular disciplines.] I'll add some more in to the mix of usually good ideas already presented. When picking suits there's always something else to buy if one wants something "better" for a particular purpose. Around these parts most new jumpers seem to get a basic freefly suit to start with, as it can be used somewhat all-round, and everyone wants to freefly. It may be a slight bother for others to grab onto their jumpsuit fabric when doing some casual formation jumps, but it is doable. Learning to sit fly with big RW grippers (and booties taped up) is on the other hand is probably not easy at all. So a freefly suit is more "generic" in its usefulness. If you're a bigger guy, yes, you'll want something baggier to make it easy to stay with other jumpers. Take a look around the DZ to see the relationship between body size and suit tightness. It seems jumpsuits are a bit like canopies in the sense that one's first choice will never be the one one wants down the road. So unless one has plenty of cash, I recommend to start with something simple and used if possible. If one later gets into serious freeflying, then one may need another freefly suit, for the first one may have been a bit too baggy, as it is easier to learn in a baggier suit. (Experienced freeflyers would know more about just how baggy is suitable for novice freefliers these days.) Belly RW is still the basic skill for safety and for learning to play well with the other kids in the sky, so one does want to match others' speeds. If getting into more serious RW, one's first suit choice may or may not give the fall rate one really wants relative to others. With a brand new suit one could get the sizing right, but with a used one it is harder to get right. If one likes RW, then yes, learning to fly booties from early on will speed one's learning. I've seen people "make do" with a particular suit for a while, but then realize they need to make a change, otherwise they'll always be the guy who floats on or sinks on a formation. I wouldn't worry about looking like a student in the DZ's coveralls...because you are a student. But I agree a larger choice of big guy coveralls would be better. I personally still use a pair of loose coveralls for simple jumps. Fast and easy to put on for solo hop and pops, CRW, winter jumps with extra clothes, or when I need more drag to stay with a slow student. Then I've got a suit that is usable both for freefly and for casual RW. And I have a bootie RW suit with bigger grips for when I'm trying to do a little more serious RW. Since you're a big guy, it'll be interesting for your coaches and instructors when they start joining you in freefall. It would be handy if you had a baggier suit of some type at that point! Also, do make sure your coach or instructor has a plan for their own speed, otherwise your feedback may not be as good if they're observing you from way above. As a skinny 150 lb guy, I've had success sitflying next to big students, when observing as a coach (rather than doing the later RW training for the A CoP). See you at STI.

Wendy F. wrote on Jan 28: Wow. Some weird karma going on here: So your chop was the VERY SAME DAY one of those canopies you mentioned got back into the air. After it had sat unused for some time, you kindly sold that cute little yellow & blue Cobalt 75 to me, and I put my first jump on it. It did hunt on opening on a 3 second delay from a C-182 skimming the bottom of the clouds at 3200', but the canopy flew straight for me. It was the first jump of the year at the DZ, one single ceremonial load before an instructor meeting, with the DZ not open for another month. Although I'm not dialled-in to Cobalts, I at least had a little swoop through the soft snow, made more amusing for the crowd because of the large frozen puddle hidden underneath. Some skidding and buttsliding involved. At least for now, knock on wood, it seems the canopy gremlins didn't make the trek from Texas to Ontario. In the end a mal is still a mal even if small ellipticals are worse. I remember watching a guy spinning around and around under a big Parafoil at a pretty good rate before he chopped. It would still get the heart rate up.

So we're talking about a Raven 120 (Micro Raven 120) with a listed "absolute maximum" weight of 123 lbs, (and a "recommended maximum" of 117 lbs). In the debate about "you must listen to the manufacturer", or "what the hell do you expect if you don't listen to the manufacturer", I always wondered to what degree the manufacturers were in on the whole charade... and whether their message was consistent and believable. Let's try a history lesson and compare stats from the 1993-1994 Paragear catalogue: Precision Raven 120...123 lbs "absolute max." Precision Monarch 120 main (Sabre-like) ........144 lbs "absolute max." PD Sabre 120 main.... 132 lbs "maximum suspended weight" PD 126 reserve............151 lbs "maximum suspended weight" [... but its PIA size is 137 or something, so a better comparison is the next size down, that wasn't yet available. From a later catalogue:] PD 113 reserve.............136 lbs "maximum suspended weight" [From the '97 catalogue - no weight in the '93 catalogue I think because it was so new:] PD Stiletto 120 main....156 lbs "maximum suspended weight" Reaction: Snickers and laughter! Yeah, right, the industry fully believed manufacturers' weight limits. Nobody more than 130 lbs body weight ever jumped a Stiletto 120. (Allowing about 25 for gear and a little slack.) And nobody over 125 lbs ever bought a PD 126. It's not as if PD wrote angry letters to Parachutist magazine about all those top jumpers and teams in the 1990's who had little Stilettos and PD 126's, about the horrible example they were setting. (Sure, mains are not the same as reserves so comparisons are not always the best. For reserves one is more interested in the average jumper, while for mains exceeding limits is more of a question for the experienced.) Note that PD's reserve numbers, even in the early days, did start out higher than the competition I'm not 100% sympathetic with skydivers who don't at least "make the best of a bad thing" by doing practice flares to help plan their landing under their small Raven. But the manufacturers clearly have been hiding behind old maximum weight statements that became ignored both by jumpers and the manufacturers. By some point it was clear to the industry what was going on in practice, both about overloading compared to the original numbers, and about an unusually large number of people stalling in under small Ravens. Precision could then have pushed hard to actually educate buyers of their reserves, telling them just what to expect from a small Micro Raven loaded outside the originally planned 'safe' range. It probably didn't help that they didn't want to say that despite small PD's landing fine when overloaded, small Precision reserves have to be treated very carefully -- it's not extra speed, but a high stall point. (A stall point that can fool even the seemingly prepared -- hard for anyone to resist flaring further than their shoulders when about to hit the ground.) Precision might get not get as bad publicity if they owned up to this. (One can't even find a Raven or R-max manual on their web site, last I looked. The company just isn't coming across as communicative.)

Packing round reserves is still "normal" to me, although an occasional practice. I learned to pack both rounds and squares at a time when rounds were still common in used rigs. In sport parachuting, I've usually come across round reserves in big old rigs being used as spare rigs for accuracy, as I'm at a DZ that has encouraged accuracy. Same applies for my own old accuracy rig. Another category was of people who have been around a long time, but rarely ever jump, and bring out their one and only ancient rig. But that's getting pretty rare. I'm not in the "ground everything at 20 years" camp, but that just delays the decision, as eventually one starts having to ask questions about 25 or 30 years for those mid '80s Phantom 24's and the like. (By the way, regarding pilot emergency rigs with lines in the pack tray: I don't know all the rigs well, but I think modern emergency rigs usually have full stow diapers. National, Butler, GQ, and Paraphernalia/FFE do it that way. Strong is a holdout with lines in the pack tray and a Type II line equalization diaper.)

Because of the many good points about PD, including their customer service, and the number of their canopies out there, even when things aren't perfect, people cut them a lot of slack. So you don't have skydivers standing around the campfire saying, "Why would anyone buy from PD? They made some early zero P canopy that kept slamming people on opening, right? And their next one kept spinning up? I'd never trust them." If you have problems with a canopy from a less known company, your buddies might shake their heads and think you made a bad choice. With a PD canopy everyone else is buying them, so you don't look like an idiot for doing so, even if you have a problem. Sort of like the 70s (?) saying in offices that nobody ever got fired for buying IBM computers, since everyone bought IBM. Other smaller companies could have just as good customer service or canopies, but more people know about PD's good service, and have seen their canopies everywhere, so it is a safer bet. Despite me poking fun at the love affair with PD, in the end the goodwill of jumpers towards PD is still of PD's own making.

beloglazov.wmv on skydivingmovies.com A fun, silly video.

Slotperfect: I actually did write Airtec prior to the DZ.com post. It is possible for someone to reasonably think that not being able to turn a Cypres on, means that the battery is dead and the Cypres is off & safe. Technically I think that was OK by the Cypres1 and 2 manuals. And both manuals state "fail-safe error detection". But other than wanting to restate that defense, I won't argue what you would suggest: It has always probably been a good idea not to jump with an AAD that is doing unexpected things...

I'm not happy with the way the bulletin was worded. I do sympathize with those who try to build reliable AADs, and have to deal with what may here be a very rare case with an unusually flaky battery. But this all changes our perception of a Cypres. The bulletin may be factually correct, but in the way it mentions 'error codes' and 'irregularities' it isn't as obvious as it should be, that: "A Cypres that is OFF may not actually be OFF -- and may not be safe to jump!" That's really new and a totally different mindset. What has been written before about Cypres' that switch off during the startup cycle? A Cypres1 manual I have mentions error codes and it turning itself off. Although the Cypres may clearly not be operational, it says nothing about any danger in leaving the Cypres Off, or immediately contacting Airtec/SSK. (At least in the "Switching CYPRES On" and "Errors Display" sections.) A Cypres2 manual I have does mention contacting Airtec/SSK (in the Error Display section), or sending the unit for maintenance (in the Operational Safety section) because it won't turn on again. But it says nothing about danger in using the rig with the Cypres Off. A complicating factor is that people may miss seeing any error code, displayed briefly before the unit shows a blank screen again. This applies whether they are turning their own Cypres on or perhaps all of the DZ's tandem & rental rigs. You start the sequence, move to the next rig, and then come back to check that all rigs show a zero. If a Cypres instead shows a blank, now what? Is it because of an valid error code that you missed, that is explained in the manual and thus safe even according to the latest bulletin? (The bulletin only talks of irregularities NOT explained in the manual.) Or was there some other weird display, or did it just not complete the sequence and turn itself off? (It seems from '91 to '07 this was bad but the device was considered Off, while in '08 one is to ground the rig.) If you didn't watch the whole sequence, you don't know which case applies. You might be able to turn it on again to see the error code, but for some errors the unit won't allow itself to be turned on (as the manual says). And then the Cypres1 manual says that is possible to have a low battery error code, then it shuts itself off, then you might occasionally be able to turn it on again and show zero (no error code) -- but then it is not guaranteed to work correctly. If this post is all a bit messy, well, yes. It takes time to work precisely through the rules governing various scenarios. And I may well have missed something too. Someone might say that all this is a bit alarmist, for even in the past if a Cypres went weird, it might be prudent to ground the rig. On the other hand, believing the Cypres to be safely Off, the owner might have jumped it for the rest of the weekend and then called Airtec on Monday, or left it with their rigger to try changing the battery. "Cypres: All you have to do is turn it on... and read the latest manual & bulletins in detail, and create a mental decision tree as part of working to fully understand the implications of all that is contained in the aforementioned information sources."

I thought she was slowed down -- coming down within a portion of the fuselage. (I have heard either tail or center section depending on source.) Still lots of luck involved. I seem to recall a couple similar "in wreckage" cases, where people survived. Some RAF fellow in a section of light bomber that broke apart after being hit over a German harbour, although it was fairly low altitude. And a couple people in the rear seats of a C-185 that broke apart at 3,500'. Their seats and tail section (no wings) landed in deep snow. (Quebec, 1997)

For a moment I thought the AC 105 thing was the thing that would save us from the dreaded FAR 65 "altering (if authorized)" wording. But I'm not so sure: Don't the Advisory Circulars have less standing than the actual CFR's / FAR's? The FAR's still rule, but AC's attempt to explain and go into more detail about suggested good practices. The AC 105 section that mentions the quoted text, is one that deals only with approved parachutes. So despite the wording, one gets they idea they are talking about reserves & harnesses only, and not really about mains. It was a good try, but I'm not confident that the contradiction Mark pointed out, actually gets us out of the need for riggers to alter main parachutes in the USA.

I was pissed off about that too. I still see adverts for Olav videos that claim the term is trademarked. I checked the US patent office today. Nothing for "freeflying", but for "freefly" there was an attempt to trademark it, but it is dead. Yet it is not in Olav's name either:

Yes! I know someone with 400 jumps who has a Sabre 107 loaded at 1.9, and loves it. He's not a wild guy or swooper, but seems to do fine on the landings, despite it being loaded a lot higher than most people did on non crossbraced canopies in the 90s. As for hard openings, to some degree you can be protected when jumping a Sabre because you expect hard openings and prepare for it. You don't crane your neck back at some vulnerable angle as you might on a canopy you expect to open softly. (However, that still can't protect against any extremely hard, out of the ordinary openings.) When I flew a Sabre 135 I sometimes used to brace my head with my arms crossed under my chin for the opening. A little odd, and not what one expects of a canopy nowadays, but at the time it was no big deal.

If he had landed in my driveway, the cops would have found him out in the street...NAKED! It's a tempting idea. But it also sounds like the opening scene of a movie like A Simple Plan or No Country for Old Men... :)

How did it happen? It was before my time but I got the impression he was a big name jumper, maybe a USPA director or something, so it was a big deal when he went in?

I'm not totally skeptical about atmo flying, although its proponents do tend to over-hype it. Some of the links don't seem to show anything out of the ordinary. The evidence of lift in the photos seems like it could be the same as during tracking, or indeed from simple 'base drag' or burble in vertical belly to earth flying. And some guy leaves his harness a bit loose, big deal. However compared to tracking and vertical belly fly, the wind direction in the photos is largely aligned with the upper body, or coming at say 0 to 20 degrees below the line of the upper body. I don't know what that implies for any of the atmo arguments. As for descent rates, I'd want to see something like Protrack traces for atmo vs. tracking, whether it is for tandem or just regular jumpers. From the theoretical standpoint I don't see huge objections to the idea of atmonauti being somewhat efficient in terms of upwards force, keeping fall rates low while still providing a lot of forward speed. Some '60s US wind tunnel studies did show similar peak lift to drag ratios for two different body positions: a) a straight body position similar to tracking and b) bent forward at the waist (sometimes with lower legs aligned more with the body than the upper legs), which is atmonauti-like. (Angles of attack were varied to find the best for each condition.) In other words, one can get efficient flight (low descent rates and fast forward motion) either with a flat body position, or one with a a lot of forward bend at the waist. Both can work. (I figure largely because humans aren't really acting as unstalled airfoils --- it is all post-stall, vortex, or flat plate sort of lift, without getting into the details.) Part of the problem in the atmo argument is understanding what is being argued. Is it that atmo isn't as efficient as it is claimed (compared to tracking), or just that it is over hyped as capital-A Atmonauti? (Something like it used to be with Olav and "his" "Freeflying".)

Whether buying a Vector II is appropriate for a new skydiver also partially depends on the local jumper climate. In some areas it might be looked down on as too old in style, nobody else jumps stuff like that, and so you won't easily be able to sell it again locally after a couple seasons when you want to upgrade or downsize. In other areas, it might be perfectly normal as a starter rig, for anything other than head down. (Which is the case around where I am, although it is common to get a bridle cover added.) There are some threads on dz.com with long debates about old Vector II's, and whether it is really worth spending the money to modify them for more freefly friendliness.

Quite the hot canopy -- no stabilizers -- just like the JVX. :-) And the removable slider too. Well, I don't think there ever was one to remove. (So what does the Para Plane use for reefing?)

So does one pack a CRW tail pocket just like a BASE tail pocket?? (Single central elastic at the bottom, then figure eight the lines from top of pocket to bottom, partially overlapped. The initial central stow tucks in a slot between pocket and canopy, so that the bight doesn't interfere with the S-folds. E.g., see attached photo from the Atair Troll manual.) Or does the pouch alsso have elastics, in which case standard side-side S-folds from top to bottom would replace the figure eights? (The central elastic would still be used first.) (I jumped with some ex Plaid Jackets using canopies just with a flap sewn to the trailing edge of the canopy, with elastics since there was no covering flap to create a pouch. The lines were stowed as I just mentioned above.)

My last Frenchy sighting was at the Canadian Nationals at Skydive Burnaby in Ontario last August. He slept on the couches in the hangar. He was complaining that it was too hot to sleep during the day, yet at night people stayed up too late. Merde this, merde that. But at least he was around. Hope he had some fun too.

I didn't understand the exact nature and level of risks in different aspects of skydiving. However, "I knew the risks" in the sense of knowing that I had better keep my wits about me, and that even then there would be some risks I had little control over. All that came from previous exposure to aviation -- getting a private pilot licence a few years before, and being involved in the field of aerobatics. Pilots also have that whole ethos or frame of mind of always preparing and practicing for what might go wrong. And there's the thing about "somebody you know will die". Well, aerobatics took care of that.