pchapman

Interesting plot! While I've seen Protrack and Neptune readouts, Vigil readouts are rarer. What were you doing on the dive? Looked like you were doing about 130 mph once up to terminal. (Without knowing how the device is calibrated for altitude and temperature.) Then there's a dip to 95 and jump to 160, even in the smoothed data. Unless you were doing something interesting, I guess those are artifacts of body postion? My Protrack, on the outside of my helmet, usually shows huge unrealistic spikes in speed when tracking away from an RW jump. Interesting to see, if my guess is right, that something similar is happening with an AAD buried in one's rig! Also, the averaging / smoothing that is applied does create a lag of 2 to 2.5 seconds, very roughly, in the speed. I assume (but don't know) that the averaged speed is the same one the Vigil is using for its firing calculations. Note that the averaging does not fix the very wide spikes of what I'm guessing are artifacts from changed body position. The raw speed data suggests you went below Vigil firing speed (the red horizontal line I believe) at about 36 seconds. That raw speed data was very smooth in the seconds before and after. But the smoothed data that the Vigil is using, doesn't show you slowed down enough until about 39 seconds. At around 80 mph 3 seconds is worth 350 feet in altitude. Which doesn't matter up above 2000 ft where you had your canopy open, but it can matter below 1000 ft near firing altitude. Hmm, I wonder how that sort of lag is taken into account by the AAD. Although the raw speed reading bounces around a lot (based on rate of change of pressure) at least the altitude reading (based on pressure) doesn't fluctuate as much. Both altitude and speed are of course needed for an AAD. (And I'm ignoring for the moment whatever Vigil says about it's own method of calculating time remaining to firing altitude.) Perhaps altitude is fairly reliably measured, using pretty much raw pressure data (or with minor filtering), but it seems like its derivative, speed, needs more smoothing and even in smoothed form doesn't as closely resemble reality as desired. The lag could affect both the issue of low pulls (jumper slowed down before the firing altitude but device doesn't know that yet), and the issue of firing after a low cutaway but no reserve pull (jumper accelerated to firing speed but the device won't know that for a couple more seconds). At steadier freefall speeds, however, the lag won't be an issue. The body position artifact issue could however come into play. I had often thought about the limitations of devices like altitude alerts ("don't trust all the numbers"), but not so much how similar issue affect lifesaving AAD's ("trust them"?). The assumption had been that a position within the parachute container would create better raw data than one on the back of the hand or outside a helmet, subject to much more varying wind blasts at different angles. This is all good food for thought. I don't have the answers yet, and the AAD companies aren't telling us their secrets. I don't think I'm ready to design one yet...

First bid is at 3 if you allow paragliders -- The Renegades paragliding acro team in Europe. (Now with different sponsorship and a different name, which I don't recall.) e.g., Planed at http://members.aon.at/renegades/dd_3er_st._hillaire_dd.jpg and death strap fun at http://www.stubaicup.parafly.at/images/renegates_2.jpg

The accident is getting talked about on the International Aerobatic Club email list. There's some good review going on about spin recovery techniques, aerobatic practice altitudes, and setting a bailout altitude. There's a fair bit of criticism of the pilot in question, for messing up the spin recovery. He had sufficient height but not a lot to spare and he left the power on initially after falling out of his maneuver, thinking he could recover anyway given that aircraft's characteristics. Whatever the merits of this, it was wrong in that he couldn't get it recovered in time. A 1500 foot hard deck isn't much and it is still impressive that he got out in time from that level, so at least he gets points for a quick bailout.

That wording does sort of make it sound like you are putting blame on the jumper... But yes it does seem to me that a jumper's position under a draggier baglock can depend partially on the jumper's actions. A jumper might initially be pulled shoulders-high under a baglock, or into a stand. Whatever the percentage chances, if it is only to a shoulders-high position, if the jumper then rotates their legs forwards (whether expecting opening shock or to get a better look or whatever) they may end up more in a sit or stand position, presenting less drag area and accelerating to a higher speed. If one is in a standing type position, it may be prudent not to admire the view for too long even if altitude is sufficient. Airtwardo mentioned being able to slow down for reserve opening because he didn't have an RSL. And on DZ.com I've heard of a baglock clearing itself, in a messy manner, after the jumper was stood up for some time. A very hard opening resulted.

Billvon compared the swoopers who, if they hit, may be more likely just to give the earth a glancing blow, to the "I'll be very careful" group, who are more likely to panic toggle whip into the ground. No objections! But I'll note, however, that it looks like the definitions being used are that those are EXPERIENCED swoopers versus INEXPERIENCED careful-approach people. The swoopers wouldn't as safely get to that glancing-blow level if they just started whipping out 270s off student status. Obviously some structured progression can help. In the same vein, someone can be an experienced and safe non-swooper, if they have taken the time to do some of those canopy control exercises, so that they aren't at great risk of the low emergency toggle whip. Either way, rapid downsizing makes it more difficult to progress. The swoopers shouldn't try to jump to the hard core swoop level instantly, and the non-swoopers shouldn't be satisfied only with very conservative approaches. Some people need to be held back a bit, others need to be given a push! PS - Dan Preston's idea about eyes-closed turn practice up high (and in clear air) is an intriguing one. Maybe good for getting a feel of the timing and non-visual cues.

I decided to vote "Other". The "expected outcome" might be defined by the mean outcome or most likely outcome, depending on how one chooses to define it. That's clearly a harsher definition than most people assume, otherwise I couldn't believe that 31% of current voters really expect that the jumper is likely to die from his choice! If this Cobalt 105 scenario applies to a certain Chris-Ottawa fellow [with this thread being based on other recent ones involving him], I figure the expected outcome is no injury beyond a twisted ankle some day. Part of the issue is whether someone plans to swoop hard. Since so many want to do so early in their careers, our thoughts about downsizing these days are often coloured by that assumption, which is often a true one, but is also a worst case scenario of sorts. If Chris does decide to start learning 270s on his own during the next couple hundred jumps, maybe I'd change my vote. Last weekend Chris dropped by the DZ I'm at. His landings were OK standups, although with clearly visible minor issues no worse than any other jumper with under 200 jumps. Given that he isn't planning on doing 270 degree swoop approaches, and isn't mixing it up with an Otter load of other jumpers, there isn't a huge danger there. He did dig the bottom end of his flare while focusing on landing by the tuffet on a load where we were having an informal bet on doing accuracy. [

I noticed that one BBC report on strange laws has a note that the report has been amended, to remove some items in the original report which they could not subsequently verify.

When newbies are doing their first freefall, it is about making them more comfortable for a particularly stressful jump -- knowing that they aren't goint to be "too low" after 5.01 seconds helps them focus on their task. (Even if they are supposed to pull whether stable or not.) What you are talking is important but comes into play later on -- getting students mentally comfortable with lower altitudes, once they already can easily physically exit stable and pull. More of an issue for AFF students obviously. And NWFlyer - thanks for looking through the SIM for the details of the wording. I had only skimmed it.

Interesting. So far it looks like the US Clear & Pull may or may not be interpreted as a 5 sec delay. Different DZ's do different things. As for altitude, I do like having extra for 5 sec delays, and make sure the student knows it to help reduce their anxiety. At the DZ I'm at, the 5 sec delays are from the same altitude as the 10 second ones, and even then there's some spare height built in.

From a thread in the General Forum called "5 Second Delays, Dammit.": Not being in the US I don't know the USPA SIM well, or the reasons for particular decisions. It seems that the traditional 5 second delay has been replaced by a "clear and pull". For both methods, as soon as a successful one is done, I believe students immediately move on to a 10 sec delay, where they have some more time to get used to stable freefall. Anyone know the justification for the clear and pull? For a student, a Clear & Pull may just be like a Training Ripcord Pull jump (or Training Throw Out or whatever it may be called depending on equipment) but "with a real handle". That way the student doesn't change their actions at all. Once that gets the student over the nervousness of their first freefall, they go right to 10 sec where they have more time to regain stability if they have a problem. I've seen plenty of 5 second delay students get head down or over on their backs, for whatever reason, maybe from an exit that would be fine with a static line to start a deployment very quickly after exit, or from general stiffness and moving around, or dearching when going for the handle. When there's only 5 seconds, it seems there's time enough to flip over, but no time to correct it, so watching their openings can be fun. So is that the reason for doing a Clear & Pull and then a 10 sec delay? In other words, with the 10, there's more time for some problems to appear, but more importantly they have time to at least fix an exit mistake before having to pull?

Downsizing is the perfect dz.com topic to discuss when one is bored! Has Chris been defensive?: Probably. But he seems to be getting thick skinned and thus inoculated to the dropzone.com way of doing things. Everyone has to take their lumps as soon as they post here. Some people don't like seeing others downsize rapidly as they'll have to watch carnage later: Don't worry about it, Chris, that's just for big turbine drop zones, where it would be depressing to see people colliding and biffing in all the time. At a smaller dropzone, really serious injuries are rare, although there is the occasional sacrifice to the swoop gods. Plus nobody worries about you potentially cutting off 20 other people at once. Keep your little home DZ safe. If you want to create carnage, head to some big US drop zone for the holidays and do it there! :-) Do I care or coach those trying to downsize quickly? Sure. Even if I'm not too tough on people trying to downsize, I want them to really understand the risks. It's not enough to say "you'll be dangerous". That just makes people defensive. One has to help people understand specific reasons why the risks may be going up. Chris wrote: I think the point is that being unskilled or a dumbass under a lightly loaded and large canopy is less likely to result in serious injury. But it is a good point -- even those on big canopies, who plan to downsize slowly, shouldn't be complacement about their skills and should improve for their own future benefit. So even if "you are surviving your first landings on the 105", I'd have no problem choosing to criticize every detail of them. Face it, if one is flying a hotter canopy, especially if one is not really proficient with it, the risk of landing injury is higher. Maybe not much when one is "being careful" with straight in landings. It is the off-DZ landing in bad terrain, or the emergency maneuvering at low altitude to avoid another jumper, where the risk is higher. One simply has to accept that if one is going to play that game. For myself, I'm so glad that there was no anti-downsizing agitating back when zero-p was new. I got to fly a Jonathan 92 a few times (at 1.8 WL) when I had 200 jumps, when I usually just jumped accuracy canopies. Not everyone sticks around long enough in the sport, and makes enough jumps per year, to satisfy those who want you to downsize through half a dozen canopies doing 500 jumps on each one... It would be nice to make people get excited about their existing bigger canopy. The only cure for boredom shouldn't be downsizing. Many need to find something to focus on: They could do those different landing exercises that are recommended before downsizing, and focus on flying their canopy consistently and to an accurate, well flared landing.

Yeah, if one takes a normal upwind jump run, and has the canopy open up facing upwind, then it is little surprise that (if the canopy turns at all), it "tries to turn downwind". No more surprising than the fact that a mouse at the north pole knows exactly which way to run south! But other than that, the shear explanation (Kallend & Billvon) sounds good.

D-47 wrote: How did one work that, not cutting away, but using a PC? The old standard, as I understood it, was to not use a PC if not cutting away, and use a PC if cutting away.

Re Nick dG I'll allow for someone who is historically minded (like Nick dG) or has a more of a scientific rather than a marketing mentality, to get just a little offended by stunt people who don't seem to appropriately credit those who came before them. In a scientific paper one would cite all the previous related stunts and how they were similar or different from one's own. But it isn't science, it is marketing and self promotion. I haven't checked to what degree Travis publicly acknowledges that others have done the stunt before. The expn.go.com site article does mention that Travis is not the first, so it is encouraging that the concept has gotten out to the media. (Travis had an interesting variation in hook up method, that actually puts more of the onus on his buddies, who weren't there just to hold the chute like for others. Maybe we skydivers should recognize Scott Palmer too, for being the active hookup guy.) It's not always about being the first. Last time I did a good swoop in front of spectators at the DZ I thought it was a damn good swoop, even though thousands of others have done even better swoops. Travis did a good stunt anyway. But I upset at the terrible example Travis set. The pictures clearly show that he threw away the Red Bull can in freefall. Aren't there littering fines in the US? Even in Puerto Rico? People will think skydivers are a bunch of crazy litterbugs...

True. But aerobatic pilots in the late 90s at least got a little more interested in canopy strength and speed ranges. That was after the 1996 Sukhoi 29 accident where the pilot bailed out at very high speed and blew all the lines off his canopy. Maximum speeds were no longer just a theoretical thing. I wonder if the newer pilots nowadays recall that anymore.

That Skydivingmagazine one has 15 entries per page. The Paragear ones have more space per entry, and thus fewer entries per page. The Skydivingmag one has fewer columns: Date, owner's name & address, manufacturer, type, serial, service location, work performed, certificate #. The Paragear uses more space per entry, as there are boxes for both the type and serial number for each of the reserve, rig, and AAD. (Just going from memory about a new one I saw earlier this year.) So the Paragear one is better if you like a lot of space and putting in a lot of detail. The Skydivingmag one is closer to the traditional style one I had from 15 years back, with more entries per page. (And I just use a second line if I need more space.)

This discussion has helped refresh my memory on low aspect ratio wings. As general comments for everyone: The Jalbert ram air wings in the NASA report Kallend referred to, were very low aspect ratio, about 0.65 to 1.0. That's a particularly low aspect ratio, which can explain the maximum lift not occurring until 30 degrees, well beyond the "normal" stall angle of an airfoil. When aspect ratios get very low there just isn't much of a "stall" in a conventional sense anyway. This is especially true of swept back delta wings where vortex lift is added. Either way, there is no longer a sudden point (when angle of attack is being increased) where lift suddenly drops off a large amount, drag continues to shoot up, and the pitching moment maybe even tries to pitch the airfoil nose down more than usual. The "stall" for a very low aspect ratio wing is a more gradual affair. As the angle of attack goes up, the lift just peaks and slowly starts to decrease. The vehicle, whatever it is, is less likely to suddenly drop and pitch nose down, but just start mushing, slowly becoming less and less efficient at flight, and descending if there isn't enough power to keep it flying level. For those who know something about aerodynamics: I agree that for low aspect ratios the lift curve slope is less steep (more angle of attack needed for the same lift), and the stall angle is higher, and the maximum lift at the stall angle tends to be a bit lower. Because of the complexity of aspect ratio effects, sometimes I think it is simplest when talking about airfoils just to talk about the ideal 2-dimensional airfoil (the same as an infinitely long airfoil). So one might talk about an airfoil that stalls at 15 or 18 degrees or something like that. Use that for one's basic discussions of how parachutes fly. But then put a disclaimer on the end that for a 3 dimensional airfoil, especially of a low aspect ratio like for parachutes, the actual angles and stall point will differ... (like all the stuff in the arguments in this thread).

Highly doubtful it's as high as +18. That would be quite remarkable for a well designed rigid wing. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/foil2.html Without trying to get too far into airfoil discussions, I'd say 18 degrees is not totally unrealistic. Foilsim (your link) does seem to show a very early stall if the output is set to Surface Pressures. Just about anything seems to show a stall at 10%. But if one selects Lift vs. Angle, more realistic results occur. E.g., for something vaguely resembling a skydiving canopy, how about 18% thick, 4% camber. Max lift is at 14.75 degrees geometric, but because of the camber, zero lift isn't attained until -3.75 degrees. Thus the total aerodynamic range to the stall is 18.5 degrees. However, the graphical part of the display still shows separated flow over much of the airfoil. The problem is the graphics are crude and pretty much suddenly switch from attached to separated at, you guessed it, 10 degrees. For another source, there's the classic book Theory of Wing Sections (by Abbot & von Doenhoff). For a similar NACA 4418 airfoil: 14 deg geometric to maximum lift, zero lift at -3.5, thus a full aerodynamic range of 17.5 degrees to the stall. So I'm just saying that 18 degrees, isn't totally out of whack when talking ideally about an airfoil. Although that is without the limitations of a 3 dimensional fabric wing, where the performance wouldn't be nearly as good -- and that you're right about. (One could still argue about what exactly defines the stall, and whether FoilSim is really doing a good job at predicting stall behaviour...I'm skeptical... it is a notoriously tough thing to do well even without the most advanced aerodynamic codes.)

While opinions will vary, here's one way that I think riggers may gain experience: Most DZ's have some sort of a loft / rigging room. There may be a chief DZ rigger one can do some work for, or maybe the DZ could use another rigger to help out when the regular one(s) are too busy. Rigging for the DZ, at the DZ, seems an easier way to "get known" than trying to start off with taking experienced jumpers' rigs home to pack -- unless you already have a good circle of friends a the DZ who trust you. Besides, you have to get a bunch of repacks done under supervision to get your rating. So unless you go to some all inclusive American-style rigging course, you need to form some sort of relationship with a local rigger. Years ago, I got my required repacks in by apprenticing essentially free at a local rigger's shop. A newbie rigger may be more likely to be trusted if he's been checked out on say just a couple types of student gear, which are often less demanding to pack than the greater variety of experienced jumper gear. (An experienced jumper with a PD 113 in a Javelin is more likely to complain about bulk distribution and loop length than a student renting a Vector II with a PD 235 in it.) Slowly he'll get more chances to pack experienced jumpers gear, with ideally some supervision at the DZ. Being in some sort of a rigging loft with exposure to more equipment and other riggers' knowledge is also a lot better for skills development (and customer safety) than being alone at home with your shiny new seal press and not much else.

I thought ( dare I say remember ) that the rings team used Vectors. You're right. The cover of ParaGear #54 (attached) shows the rings jumpers all had Vectors. (The photo credit says "Kent, Crabtree, Sanders" - somehow their photos must have been pooled or shared.) The Racer thing might have been just for the CRW / accuracy folks. Who knows.

I don't know what the current thinking is, so I'm wondering what the opinion is about what to do when teaching about emergency dive recovery, to prevent ground impact while in a turning dive. The standard recommendation always seems to be to level the wing (canopy) first, to enhance the ability to pull out, by getting the lift vector working directly upwards instead of being angled and contributing less vertically. I don't like that as the SOLE answer. While that could well be appropriate at slightly higher altitudes, at very low altitudes there might be too much time wasted in rolling wings level before starting the pull out. I heard Brian Germain also isn't happy with the roll-level-first idea - more on that later. Part of the problem is that people don't typically have practice in asymmetrical toggle flares from a turning dive. They might be able to turn quickly, or apply both brakes quickly, but trying to flare sharply while trying to level out at the same time just isn't practiced much. In such cases, if the person is very low, it may be best to focus on first flaring hard, even if the canopy is still in a turning dive. Then the person can start applying some more outside brake to level the wing. Ideally there would be both a flare and extra outside brake to level the wing, all at the same time. Naturally if one brake is to be pulled down more than the other, one can't do a 100% flare first. One brake has to end up down further than the other, or at least lead the other brake as the toggles come down, even if both end up at 100% in the end. The idea of flaring and turning at the same time is in some of those "downsizing checklists", things to become comfortable with on one's canopy before downsizing. But (without checking them right now) I think the exercise is mostly designed as an avoidance maneuver, not a dive recovery maneuver. The difference: -- avoidance: start wings level, do a flared turn off to the side (and, whether the canopy stays banked or is re-levelled, the rate of descent has to be taken out to permit a soft landing) -- dive recovery: start in a diving turn, do a flared turn to level out in roll and rate of descent So even the turn & flare practice for avoidance maneuvers doesn't translate precisely into the skill needed for dive recovery. As for Brian Germain, I recently read that he also likes the idea of not automatically trying to level the wing first. E.g., from his site: [Quote] Turning too low is the preliminary cause of many injuries in our sport. Unfortunately, most canopy pilots assume that bank angle must be eradicated before arresting the dive. This leads many to waste valuable altitude in the process of leveling the wing. In situations with very little altitude remaining, this may delay the collective brake application until it is too late. By rehearsing a transition to zero decent while still in a bank, the pilot becomes accustomed to applying the toggle on the outside of the turn as a learned instinct, reducing the chances of a turn leading to serious injury. Also: [Quote] Arrest the dive as quickly as possible by sharply applying the opposite toggle as well as the inside toggle; the inside toggle is not applied until the two are matched in the degree of input. When the toggles are matched, a short stab of collective brake pressure is usually all that is needed to achieve level flight. I am confused by his wording in that last paragraph. For example, what's the difference between "matched" and "collective brake pressure"? Both sound like they apply to brakes being at the same point. Maybe it is just me, but his choice of words seems poor. Either way, I think his overall point is clear -- one should be able to both flare and turn at the same time. I just think that if one isn't well practiced in doing so, one might not be able to accomplish that accurately and quickly. In such a case is better start with a quick flare (which one can do instinctively), and then add some turn.

Everyone's memory differs! I'm just reporting what I read. In late '88 a Canadian on the Olympic jump, Eileen Vaughan, wrote an article for Canpara magazine. While she could have gotten erroneous information too, this is what she had to say: ==== "Our only misadventures included one Korean malfunction on a practise jump. After his cutaway and reserve opening he landed in the stadium under his Firelite. Unfortunately, members of the media only saw his cutaway main fall to the ground and assumed it was a person. The rumours were rampant for two days that someone had been killed, though no one bothered to verify the fact. One U.S. media group went so far as to send a report back to the U.S. that a Golden Knight had been killed. That generated several reassuring phone calls to confirm that there were no problems. The other mishap occurred one windy day when 5 CIP jumpers got caught concentrating too much on flying the formation and not on accuracy and landed out of the stadium (National Accuracy Champs, mind you). No, I wasn't one of them. A few red faces on that one. This also generated some media." ==== Eileen was one of the national accuracy champs who participated to do non-contact CRW stacks. The other two groups among the skydivers were the champion RW teams who formed the Olympic rings in freefall, and a group from the Korean army. Each of the freefall rings was made by a different RW team: the Golden Knights, Tag Heurer (France), Coors, Air Bears, and Mirror Image. The jumpers had apparently all been offered Pursuit mains (in the required Olympic colours) / Firelite reserves / Racer Elite containers at a good price, so I imagine that was a combo many had. Edited: Jerry Baumchen mentioned how a rings team member said there was no malfunction... if Eileen is correct, then the team member is correct only that there was no mal among the rings teams. Edit #2: What the hell, here's some more from the scanned article: ==== "Over the next 6 days we made 19 practise jumps from 3 U.S. Army Chinook Helicopters (plus a few spares as are usually required). We made all but 6 jumps into the main stadium with the others made onto an open DZ at the Kwangnaru Yatching Centre in Seoul. We all preferred the Olympic stadium as you can imagine, and that's where the reporters were. Flying past the upper edge of the stadium and getting lots of lift and turbulence while trying to perform a "non-contact CRW stack" really got the adrenaline pumping. Most of our jumps looked more like tight accuracy stacks but we still had our work cut out for us in making the jump of Olympic standard. Fortunately, working with the best jumpers in the world make it possible, even with some language barriers. For our first two days of practise, each group worked separately, with long delays between each part of the show. We then progressed to the intended routine of each group landing immediately after the other to work on our timings for the show of only 7 minutes and 30 seconds (or so). In order to fit in with the rest of the ceremonies show, we had to make the timing perfect. Each jump was videoed and critiqued for effect and timing. We had to perform given any weather or wind, so we varied our exit altitude from 2000' to 4000'. The Rings Team worked with a range of 2000' to 11,000' with modifications. At 2000" they would hop and pop like us and the Koreans, to fly only a canopy show. At 3500' they would drag out each ring separately. At 6000' or over they would go for the whole Olympic Rings formation. These guys were hot, as they completed a 20-way, (in fact a 32 or 33-way with a couple alternates sliding in) from 5500'!! Lots of yahooing after that one. Being the lightweight on the CIP load, I was usually of top of the stack, which was a beautiful view of the group and pattern that we flew. The first of the yellow ring guys would be right on my heels for landing or even land a couple before me, so I had to keep an eye out for them on their opening. The days were long due to delays and holds for air traffic, other people using the stadium, and endless briefings and debriefings. We usually made 4 jumps per day from 7:30 a.m. till 8 p.m. with a break for our daily "western" lunch of cold cheeseburgers and warm Cokes. Soon we were offered a vegetarian option of 3 doughnuts and an apple. " ==== (Emphasis mine on the good old school RW altitudes!)

Yeah, I see what you mean, that's the old problem with regulators: It's hard to regulate well if you know less than the people you are regulating about some very specific topic. Would I say OK? In my ideal world, if I were the FAA guy involved, I'd set up conditions that would remove most risk to persons and property on the ground, and require the applicants to present documentation demonstrating that they were taking reasonable steps to create a favorable outcome. I wouldn't issue a document that would imply that their particular stunt plan was "safe" for the participants. I would issue a document allowing the group to engage in aeronautical activities in a certain time and place with specific exemptions for particular regs, and be satisfied that those concerned were voluntarily accepting risks, while others in society would not be harmed. (I wonder what the regs were in "the old days". There were the Cliff Winters airplane stunts, some involving low altitude parachuting in the 1950s in the US. FMI: http://www.parachutehistory.com/men/wintersc.html Or, in a relatively more recent era, there was stuntman Jim Bailey in Hawaii in 1981, hanging from the bottom of a plane to try to skid along to a landing in an armor plated suit, who fell to his death when his support hook released early. I saw the disturbing video on TV years ago, and it is out on the web too. So in the past there have been bizarre ways to get yourself killed, that have been in the purview of the FAA.)

I do like seeing stunts. But one can distinguish between different varieties of stunts. Some may be carefully set up a such and don't harm others, while are more like BASE dayblazing that cause problems for other jumpers. As for the legality, what has always troubled me is that, at least at the surface, the FAA just doesn't seem to make exceptions to the skydiving rules. Even in the field of aerobatics, heavily regulated as with most aircraft operations, airshow pilots can get low level waivers if they can demonstrate reasonable skill and experience, to fly aerobatics down low at airshows. I wonder how hard it would be to ask for a waiver to do 400' BASE rig jumps from aircraft at airshows? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't sound likely. Given all the different airshow acts out there, there would be a market. And it isn't as if professional airshow performers (and aerobatic pilots in general) don't get themselves killed regularly. It is not as if the FAA regulations on skydiving equipment & altitudes apply only at airshows or within 2000' laterally of any person or structure, to avoid harm to the rest of society. One can fly a plane right down on the deck, legally, if well away from persons and structures. (Although regulations on maintaining the aircraft still apply). While I don't know the regs that pertain to the latest chuteless jump, if it wasn't done within the law, I somewhat doubt that he had much opportunity to do it within the law if even he tried.

How would you make them? I'll just reply to that, and not the issue of whether the original poster needs or should used webbed gloves. Webbed gloves can be much simpler to make than regular gloves, if one has access to materials. The skydiving ones I have from the early 90s are pretty much just a layer of heavy spandex style material on top of a layer of leather like material. Then it is just sewn around 3 sides and around the fingers as if one traced around one's stretched hand. There is also an all Spandex cuff that complicates things a bit. I've seen another brand that is more like cycling gloves in that the finger tips are open. Less area, worse when cold, but better for grabbing things. I experimented with the webbed gloves a few times for style sets, beginning to sit fly (way back in the sit suit era), and tandem video. No fun when dealing with toggles and risers for a small crossbraced canopy these days.