pchapman

That's some major pot stirring there, whoever you may be! Well, I'll take a bite.... Interesting to see these "secret" things about the USPA be opened up to view. While the PDF above has a pages of legalize about why the USPA is obligated to pay up the $150,000 as agreed, it all came about because of the stuff described below: (Which must be about the Lodi tandem fatality and all the shady stuff going on there when it comes to fake certifications of instructors.) Mr. G sued the USPA, the court sent it to Mediation and came to an initial sort-of agreement, but the USPA wanted one more change, but Mr G didn't agree. The court then decided that the initial agreement was legally an agreement. So the USPA had agreed to pay the $150,000. Part of the deal was also confidentiality on both parties -- One of those things that's common in the legal world but often seems really slimy to someone not in that profession. The case involves the USPA and so USPA members should have a right to know if something got screwed up, that's costing their organization. I have no dog in this fight but just wanted to summarize what's hidden away in the PDF. Others are free to do a better job. Anyone got a link to the old Lodi fatality thread, or some thread that gets into whatever license suspensions took place, and all that mess with Tandem Instructors having to requalify because their instructor wasn't considered to have been properly rated? One thing I'm wondering about is the statement: I suppose that has been previously established, and agreed to by the USPA prior to the court case? Is there info to that effect available publicly? It sounds like the USPA was pretty upset with all the Lodi stuff, and in effect did an "emergency revocation" of ratings.... but didn't pull out the manual to do so in the prescribed manner, allowing the defendant to make a proper defense.

At least it is a big round canopy here: 1937 French tandem under a round. Ok, a stunt, not a regular thing. (I imagine a bit of a discussion on the way down, about how to properly PLF.)

Hey, not everyone swooping a pond is a professional. (Pond availability varies a lot. Can be quite rare, but not always just at the 'super big DZ's full of pro swoopers'). Always good to know what the latest tech is and that includes waterproof status.

Just to be clear, you're saying the inertia of the heavy diaper & lines basically pulled down on that side, causing the opposite seam to get pulled up. Do you remember the circumstances of this one? (Year, location, anything?) I have tried to keep track of any Phantom failures but hadn't heard of that one. National of course isn't big on advertising their canopy failures. Certainly there was the one where a pilot bailed out at very high speed, and blew all the lines off his Phantom. (Su-29, 1996, Louisiana, radar showed aircraft at 220 knots at some point). Your case was definitely a different one? (The way National certified the Phantom was pretty sketchy, making 'engineering' judgements or assumptions that meant their canopy may not have been given tests anywhere close to the strength requirements of the old NAS804 used in the certification. At least, that's what one can infer from the very dry, factual statements by the FAA when investigating that 1996 accident. )

Seems OK by the manual. Cypres would just get fooled if you started at "ground level" then during the climb the pressure went to below ground level. (Special case: If a DZ offset is set, then the limit is that new level, not zero.) So climbing to 3000', starting to pressurize and going to a cabin altitude of 3000' minimum (or even dipping down to say 2000'), and then climbing to altitude with the cabin altitude only slowly ascending or level at some value, before eventually depressurizing.... That's little different to a Cypres than climbing in a regular aircraft to 3000', ducking down lower because of some clouds, and then climbing to altitude. But question #3 makes one wonder what the original poster's skydiving experience is... Since basically nobody uses pressurization unless you are on some very rare, unusual world record with exotic aircraft. It doesn't apply for 99.9999% of skydives.

I agree, I'm also a little skeptical of that being a universal truth. "Analog is better" may only be for a certain circumstance: E.g., looking down a couple rows of gauges of engine instruments to get a rough idea if all numbers are reasonable and "in the green" rather than being out of a certain range. Much easier to see that "all gauges are pointing to the upper left" than see a list of numbers and have to interpret what each value means, when 'good' numbers could be 2450, 90, 28.5, 375, 1550 etc. depending on the gauge. And were the digital numbers of those comparison studies recent enough to have colour displays that could show whether a digital readout was in the green, yellow, or red, to make the comparison more meaningful? Indeed I think many LCD etc screen displays on airliners now show both the actual value, and a circular sweep gauge -- both kinds of readouts are useful for different reasons. But if you want a single value, then it can be easier to look at a digital number. (And I'm saying this stuff that is pro-digital, as someone who still uses their big old Alti II mechanical gauge alti and is fine with that.)

Bonfires have been pretty traditional at the DZ's in my neck of the woods. (Southern Ontario) A bonfire is a place to socialize around. Maybe the hangar or DZ buildings get locked up late at night, and there isn't some well lighted patio at night as one might get at a giant DZ. Maybe it is a chilly spring / fall / even summer evening. Maybe a fire keeps a few bugs away. So better a bonfire than standing around aimlessly in the dark and cold. The OP mentioned fire hazard as one reason not to have them. One might also have DZ's at a municipal airport, where they aren't allowed to have open fires. I have also seen the tradition wither somewhat as a DZ gets bigger, where it goes from 'We're all here for fun, did a few fun jumps, did a few working jumps for the DZ, now we hang out late at night' to 'A bunch of staff are full time at least in summer and are doing this 5 days a week and have just done 10+ working jumps today -- so screw it, they just want to go get some sleep'. So there are a bunch of practical reasons why a bonfire may be more or less popular at different places at different times. Next up for the OP to learn about?: Flaming soccer. Also not something for tinder dry locations.

Yeah there's something wrong with the math there. Double check your sources. I don't have good sources at hand but have seen it written on aviation sites that 40,000 ft on 100% oxygen is like 10,000'. And the alveolar partial pressure of oxygen (what counts, after removing the partial pressure of water vapour), at 42,000ft looks like it is the same as at 14,000', according to a big 2008 aviation medicine text (although using data from an earlier study). That's why something around 41,000' is the typical limit without pressure breathing, as that gets you to around the equivalent to the height where you normally want to start looking at going on oxygen if flying for a longer period. (....assuming the best case where your oxygen system is working perfectly and you have a good mask seal.) As you say, partial pressure breathing (your term was overpressure) can get you a little bit more oxygen, a bit higher.

I'm not super impressed by it. Nice idea though. Of course it is a good idea in getting people to look at different factors that people consider when looking at risk under canopy. Unfortunately the tool doesn't show the points for each of the choices one can make, so without a lot of experimentation one has no idea what the developers or USPA think about different risks. It also seems to show a lot of stuff as dangerous. Which may be true. But for example, without going into every choice: It gives me a score of 45 if I am a fairly new jumper with 150 jumps who downsizes to a Sabre 2 135 at 1.25:1, has just started to fly the canopy for the first time, and has no canopy courses (but at least isn't a total idiot and so has done some canopy maneuvers recently). That 45 is "High Risk" between 35 and 50, below the 51 "Scary" range. If I plug in numbers for myself with a cross braced sub-100 canopy, for a year where I was the most active, with thousands of jumps, hundreds of jumps on the canopy and hundreds that year.... I still get a score of 43. So the newbie who is downsizing can say, "Well sure it says High Risk for me, but only slightly more than you with all your experience? So what's wrong with me downsizing? I mean, if you with your thousands of jumps and lots on your crossbrace are High Risk... then don't I WANT to be High Risk too? Living the swoopin' life? You can't smugly stand there and say I can't suddenly downsize to a whole 1.25 wing loading, when our risk levels are so similar? Do you get more right to live dangerously if you have thousands of jumps?" If the situations are equivalent the tool pretty much only says, "Well, duh, skydiving is dangerous unless you just keep flying big canopies."

Yeah I'm guessing it is the normal wind shear that exists near the surface, with wind speed sometimes significantly increasing in the bottom 100' or whatever of the atmosphere. I'm not totally sure of the logic in all cases. Eg, why do you want just a little headwind, rather than a moderate although still smooth headwind being equally as good? But anyway, if you are down low with lets say near zero wind and pop up into a higher headwind, wham, you can get a temporary boost in lift, that gives you more margin before sinking out back to ground level. ("Temporary" until inertia effects and aerodynamics have you and the canopy reacting to the changed wind conditions.) (Note that the upwards trajectory in the maneuver matters too as the increased headwind also increases the angle of attack, also boosting lift. In contrast, when on a normal skydive you are just descending on a normal glide under a parachute, and suddenly you get a headwind, yes the wind speed hitting the canopy is higher, but the angle of attack of the canopy will suddenly be lower -- so depending on angles and speeds, the combination of greater speed but less angle of attack may give more or less lift -- the canopy might sink faster rather than sinking less fast, or even have the nose collapse downwards if the angle of attack got too low. )

Hey lyosha, that claim surprises me too. It is very rare that an underloaded canopy is dangerous. Maybe, say, a very large crossbraced canopy with a tiny jumper -- that can collapse more easily at low wing loading with its small nose openings. Or are you including cases where the jumper screwed up their flight planning? I never had any big problem jumping accuracy canopies at 0.65 wing loading, in high winds where I was being pushed backwards right to landing, even if the landing was a bit rough. But it does take some actual spotting, so if you get dumped out of a turbine aircraft at a DZ with a lot of obstacles and a tight LZ, you could easily get into trouble. But that's not directly due to the low wing loading. A light wing loading canopy is more likely in nasty turbulence to - for example - fold a wingtip under, but that's more or less compensated for, by its much more benign behavior with a sudden loss of lift on one side. So I'm also curious just what sort of circumstances existed where you had friends breaking themselves under (and possibly "due to") light wing loading.

While barrel rolls had been done for at least 20 years on skydiving gear, on a descending flight path, I guess the innovation was doing it after a touch and go at surface level. Not actually a climbing barrel roll, but with a canopy with the performance to climb enough after a touch and go, to still allow the barrel roll to be completed. Not done to a safe landing on dry land, but at least to a reasonably controlled splash down on water. Not that I know much about the history of these things; I'm just trying to put it all into context of what the specific attributes and achievements were.

Come on Rob, you have to ease up on your 20 year rule as the years go by! :-) Yeah at one time a 20 year old reserve was some crappy lightweight maybe acid damaged round. Or some easy to stall tiny overloaded Raven with no spanwise reinforcement. But now a 20 year old reserve can be a great PD reserve that will take high weights and speeds. Similarly, a 20 year old rig isn't one with velcro all over, and relatively sketchy bridle and pin protection. A 20 year old rig is most likeley fully free fly friendly. You might not get a MARD on most 2002 rigs, or magnetic riser covers, but other than fancier looking hardware and backpads, the rest of the design isn't going to be much different. Now you may be right that say a 2002 Vector III & PD reserve (with say 20-25 boxes ticked off) & Sabre 2 isn't going to command a nearly-new price ... but it isn't exactly crap gear worth nearly nothing. If you were only talking about 20 year old pilot rigs .... Well yeah their value is going down a fair bit. But they don't seem uncommon up here in Canada. I think they migrate up here as US FAA riggers get more antsy about packing them, being more worried about 20 year "service life" stuff in manuals. But if they haven't been heavily used and sitting in the sun a lot, they can be in decent shape.

Indeed they could. But I think it would indeed be advisory only, a recommendation. When that FAA letter to the USPA came out years ago, supposedly explaining and clarifying what the rules on life limits were, that letter was unfortunately unclear in one bit of wording. So it didn't clear things up completely. Some riggers certainly argue that the only mandatory limit is if it is part of the original TSO certification. That's the interpretation I tend to follow and think is correct based on the messy wording in the letter. Still, others might interpret that if the manual the parachute came with now lists a life, then from that point onwards there is a life limit. It is common for companies to put age limits on pilot rig canopies and containers, while not putting limits on most sport gear. Just a quirk of the way the industry has developed. While age limits are accepted as normal in a few places in Europe, it wouldn't go over well with skydivers here as it just hasn't been the historical way it is done. But for a pilot, well the rig is just another expensive part that has some form of time limits. "Inspect this part on the plane at 1000 hours, overhaul that prop at 10 years, replace the emergency parachute at 20 years, whatever, it's all similar." The FAA letter says that to to make a mandatory service life, the manufacturer issues a Safety Bulletin with safety concerns and recommends the FAA issue an Airworthiness Directive -- and that AD would establish a mandatory life. But I also understand those riggers who simply choose to follow a manufacturer recommendation.

Whether to pack older pilot rigs tends to be a personal choice by riggers, in terms of liability. Some say "If the manufacturer writes that after 20 years I have to cut it up and eat every piece topped with jam, well, my FAA rating says I have to do what the manufacturer says.... Besides, even if I consider the manufacturer's statement about service life to only be a non-binding recommendation, I personally prefer not to go against that recommendation. Plus, I own a house and don't want to be sued by someone's stupid family." Others say "According to the FAA there was no life limit established on that parachute when it was first certified, and so if newer versions of the manual state a 20 year life, that is not mandatory and only an advisory. Also, based on existing rigging practices in skydiving, there are no similar life limit rules for the majority of skydiving equipment in North America, and thus no industry-wide safety issue exists. Each reserve parachute or emergency parachute is considered individually when being packed, whether it is airworthy at the time of packing." If little-worn, well stored, out of the sun, the rig may be nearly new in terms of strength of materials. Opinions vary.

Welcome. Your name should still be known to anyone interested in the history of BASE. I was at Bridge Day 2006 where your old buddy Brian Schubert died. RIP. It was a little odd to be standing in line to jump, getting close to the ramp, with the line slowly moving forwards, then after staff looking over the edge say "Pull! Pull..." and trail off, the line stops for 20 minutes or so, after which the line started moving forwards again. "Next!"...

I always wondered if there would be enough flex in a roll up jump door to be able to kick it out. The aluminum L brackets typically used do look fairly solid, but maybe over a few feet of width on a typical jump door, there would be just enough flex to pop one side of the plexiglas out of its channel. I dunno. One wouldn't want them so light weight that after wear and abuse and accidental bumps against them, that they start coming half out and flailing around. Kicking the rollup door open is just something one doesn't have the opportunity to test at a DZ, unless one is really good at getting out of town fast and never coming back.

Side conversations: a) I'd say that Hard Deck in other forms of aviation isn't always the simulated ground level. It may just be the level you plan to never go below, because that would imply a failure of your flying the maneuvers as you wanted. So I've seen a hard deck of 1500' mentioned for Sportsman level competition aerobatics.... because that's the minimum you are allowed to fly at, in that category, without getting severely penalized (like scoring zero for your whole flight). It isn't as if a Sportsman level aerobatic competitor is pretending to do low level aerobatics simulating the ground at 1500'. It is just the "don't ever go there!" altitude. b) If we have a Hard Deck in skydiving, then logically speaking there must also be a Soft Deck, perhaps as the desired but not absolutely minimum cutaway altitude... which is maybe the Decision Altitude! But since nobody every says Soft Deck, better just ignore that idea entirely instead of trying to change the whole sport's terminology. Back to the main topic: I don't have good answers either to this whole thread, but if talking to a newbie jumper I'd probably say something like: "The Cutaway Decision Altitude is often just abbreviated to the Decision Altitude when talking about malfunction emergencies. It is the minimum altitude at which you normally would want to be cutting away. Cutting away is also known as Breaking Away. You would prefer to make the decision to cut away, and actually do so, higher than the Cutaway Decision Altitude. But you can cutaway lower if you somehow accidentally find yourself lower than the Decision Altitude, and have a malfunction. Then the absolute minimum altitude at which you would ever cut away is the Cutaway Hard Deck, often just abbreviated as the Hard Deck when talking about malfunction emergencies."

Except that the SkySnatch pilot chute, a leader in non-flat circular / vented / pulled down apex pilot chute design, is getting popular. They normally (always?) come with a hexagonal carbon fibre open tube handle. So open tube handles are no longer just something more commonly seen on cheap old rigs, or as the cheaper option than other handles.

Deyan's right about the freefly tuck tab, as well as the basic PC pack job. On a new rig, I've seen the latter make a difference between 'ok to extract' and 'lift the whole rig by the PC handle and bounce it up and down without it coming out'. At least if you are renting and new to a rig, it isn't difficult to test out the BOC pull (not too easy, not too hard), and then just repack the pilot chute if needed. "Hollow cylinder monstrosities" = Nice and light weight handle which reduces the chance of the handle entangling with the pilot chute. But also a place for fingers to get stuck into, if one grabs it too hastily and is unlucky. Some places put gaffer tape over the holes. Or just grab it carefully. The PC could be on the larger size for bigger student canopies.

Except on their own the definitions ARE unclear. But the definitions are still useful ... if given sufficient explanation and put in the right context. "Which decision altitude? For aircraft emergency bailout or what? No, we're talking about your malfunction decision altitude." "What hard deck? For last CRW dock? For last novice freefall maneuver initiation? For dealing with a malfunction (i.e., same as the malfunction decision altitude, as long as one isn't already below it)? No, we're talking about your cutaway hard deck. " And if you have a 2000' decision altitude, you don't HAVE to ride a mal down to the 2000' decision altitude. And if you are at 1800', you can still make that decision to cutaway.

Good stuff to see the USPA definitions. They are still very general and need instructors to fill in what they really mean in practice. The Decision Altitude needs the added discussion about how we're usually talking about whether to cut away (rather than than taking some other action), and the ability to make a decision both before that altitude, and after it, if you unfortunately get to that point. The Hard Deck according to the USPA can be used for various types of minimum altitudes, so if being specific one would need to talk about someones cut away hard deck for example, rather than hard deck in general. Edit: Using the USPA definitions, one's decision altitude for finishing deciding whether to chop a malfunction can also be one's hard deck for fighting a malfunction! I think we just have to be a little more specific if talking about these things to an audience where something may be misinterpreted.

I seem to recall we had this big discussion about unclear terminology for hard decks & decision altitudes & cutaways a few years back on dropzone too. That was in 2018 and back then I referenced the previous big discussion about it in 2014. Stay tuned I guess for a 2026 discussion. 2018 discussion: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/262736-malfunctions-below-your-hard-deck [Edit *2 : Looks like the 2018 discussion only touches on the unclear terminology. The 2014 also only has limited discussion on this particular subject, so it isn't like it is a good reference. So I've crossed both links off but left them in here.] 2014 discussion: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/227-hard-deck/ I haven't yet gone back to read all that yet! I had written: "At least when I checked and posted in 2014, the USPA doesn't define either term." [Edit: See chuckakers below -- there seems to be a definition now] If we still don't have a good definition from say the USPA that we can start to try following, then we'll just have to be more specific about whatever hard deck or decision altitude we are talking about at any given time. It sounds like one option that some people like is the "decision altitude" for the higher level, and "hard deck" for the lower level. Or we need to additionally add more info -- "malfunction decision height" and "cutaway hard deck". With the obvious caveat that if one is below the decision altitude, one still needs to make a decision. And indeed make a decision if below the hard deck, but a different kind of decision not involving a cut-away. It takes a little work to explain clearly and unambiguously for the newbies without sounding like the Fandango instructor....

Interesting to see those rules! -- including how they classify their canopies into levels 1-7. But, oh man they're strict. At least regarding recent experience. If that calculator does cover all the parts of the Dutch rules, looks like I could have thousands of jumps on my swooping canopy, and not be allowed to fly it unless I had a hundred jumps in the last year. Or similarly, if a national champion swooper took a break for a year, next year he would be down to flying stuff like a Pilot at 1.05 wing loading max until he built his 1-year jump numbers up. Unless he could grovel for a waiver. Bizarre. (As we digress from Opening Altitude rules to those about Wingsuits and about Wing Loadings...)

What’s so hard about it? I don't want to get too far into this argument, but I think the idea is that it is hard to deal with different human performance abilities, that affect landing a parachute, more than it does getting your reserve out in time. The argument isn't that it is any way hard to write some numbers down on paper. For minimum opening altitude, even if I'm a shit hot jumper, my reserve opening distance is like anyone else's, my main will snivel as much as anyone else's, and even if I'm skilled, my reflexes aren't going to be that much different than anyone else skilled. So it is easier to set a hard limit, with a few mods for jump numbers or license levels. (Though one can of course quibble about some situations, eg, "What about if I'm not doing 120 mph but am just doing a hop and pop, and I have a big F-111 canopy that doesn't snivel forever -- aren't slightly lower limits reasonable?") For landing parachutes at different wing loadings, there it is harder to decide what is appropriate and not just arbitrary, as it is more an issue of experience and skill. E.g, I and others with significant airplane piloting experience have successfully downsized faster than typical in skydiving -- because high approach speeds and a fine touch on the controls aren't something new to us. (Having waivers would of course allow more flexibility if there otherwise were hard limits on wing loading vs. jumps.)