pchapman

Al does continue to build the Sidewinders. (Last I talked to him early this year.) They tend to be more popular as student rigs -- a straightforward rig that can be paid in Canadian pesos. Although big companies will work with a potential customer on a DZ's custom needs, I've certainly seen him do that as a small shop. As for the original post questions about TSOs, I guess the rigs didn't have a TSO originally (as with his earlier designs that were on the market in the '80s), then he did the expensive testing and quality control stuff to get a TSO. So for some years rigs were built under the full US-legal TSO. Later he let the TSO lapse because he wasn't making enough US sales to justify the cost of either the inspections or procedures, I dunno exactly, to maintain the full TSO production facility authorization. So new rigs will be of a design that passed TSO testing but not actually TSO'd since they aren't built at a currently approved production facility.

Although I use avidemux sometimes, but I personally find the interface clunky. I've been using "Free Video Editor by DVDVideoSoft" v 1.4.4. That freeware has a nice clean editing interface to clip out any sections one wants. I have seen good things about it on the web, eg at Videohelp. Real trimming with instant saves, without having to render / re-encode or whatever. Works great with GoPro footage although it choked on Sony CX series .mts files. (Which avidemux handled) Caveats for the DVDVideoSoft product: - be careful when installing to not miss the options to avoid installing bundled crapware! Don't click through too quickly. - I've also seen some comments online (eg at Download.com) saying that the newest versions don't work as well and have some very hard to remove crapware that one can't avoid. So it may be more of a pain than it is worth. But if you can dig up an old version it can be nice.

Now I haven't been keeping track of these things but that brings up 2 responses: -- Hey that's allowed by UPT? Just recently? -- What steps were needed to get that endorsed by UPT? UPT has tended to not like other companies canopies in its gear, for a variety of reasons. The first google search result for "precision tandem reserve in sigma" brings up a UPT page with a statement that begins: "We will never endorse the use of any other reserve tandem canopy than the VR-360 in the Sigma/Micro Sigma tandem system for the following reasons." Now they don't actually say they'll pull ratings or anything, just that it won't be endorsed.

As background material, here's some basic info that Aerodyne gives about their new ZLX, on their Zulu page:

Brian may be right, since he knows a lot of stuff. But I'm still a little skeptical that it really can do all that much to stop the canopy from turning, but I dunno. I think it is more a case of preventing oneself from twisting under the canopy after the canopy does its thing, by simply bracing against the risers. If the canopy really wants to turn, how much does pushing out a little on the risers really affect the opening canopy up above? So if your rings on either shoulder are normally 12" apart and the snivelling canopy's base is kept say 32" apart by the slider up at the stops, will the canopy really open better if you manage to shove the lines apart a few inches? Who knows, maybe getting them 20" apart, how will that really improve the canopy opening? And how much can you really spread them when under elevated G force during the opening? Well the canopy shouldn't be affected much, but your weight at the end of separated lines will create resistance to turning. (Eg., if you went the other way, and tightened the chest strap so much that your 3-rings were 6" apart, line twists would likely increase). I'm not sure how much you will be able to spread the risers during opening, if that's enough to really increase the resistance to twisting much. Although I suppose one is also reducing the length of the lines that can twist: While one can't realistically stop all twisting, if one were infinitely strong when reaching up and would never have one's arms pushed around by the risers and lines, one might be reducing the line length that can twist from say 11' down to 9'. Which leads to increased resistance to twisting. An improvement of some sort, but just in an idealized case. What I believe, is that bracing against the risers just helps the jumper reduce the chance of himself not being able to follow the canopy if the canopy does start to twist the lines. The canopy is largely gonna do what it's gonna do, but the jumper can help resist that first quarter to half twist from happening, where resistance to further twisting goes to zero as the lines or risers from opposite sides get close and then touch. So let's say the canopy snivels and then snaps 120 degrees left. By bracing, the jumper may be able to keep himself following the canopy instead of having the lines turn 120 degrees which would put them very close to touching -- and thus leaving zero resistance to further twisting up between canopy and jumper. In this case it would likely be the jumper that turns more, not the canopy. The jumper gets whipped about, the lines touch each other as the canopy darts off on another heading, and then the jumper has been thrown into twists as he rotates under the canopy with almost no resistance. The canopy is flying straight, 120 degrees off the original heading, but the jumper has rotated into 2-4 twists as is common. Bracing on the risers may help one follow the canopy if the change in direction isn't too severe. (araglider pilots, although working with risers that are spread more, will indeed brace off their risers when doing advanced maneuvers that might throw them into twists. Note they aren't stopping the canopy from twisting, but preventing their own bodies from being thrown into twists below the canopy. (One also has to be careful of twitchy canopies -- If one presses on the risers unevenly during opening that can cause the canopy to try to rotate. Which is why some manuals, eg for the PD Katana, say to keep hands off the risers on opening -- even if a particular experienced jumper in tune with their canopy might be able to do better by working the risers.)

There does seem to be something unique about the dislike for BPA's FS1 rule. At a distance, from Canada, I'm not sure why that is. After all, Canada has a vaguely similar requirement that after the A licence one can only do 2 ways, and only with approved people (roughly, jumpers with a B licence and 100 jumps and coach approval, or coaches themselves). So Canadian newbies are always stoked after going to the US in winter and being allowed to jump with as big a formation as they dare, with just an A licence. But nobody bitches too much in Canada -- it is accepted that one still has to do at least 3 RW coaching jumps to get signed off for group RW (more than 1:1), for full RW privileges once one has the B licence (min 50 jumps) There seems to be more dislike of the UK rule though, and I'm not sure why? It isn't a new rule that seems like a sudden imposition? Are Brits comparing themselves to Americans, where 'anything goes' after the A license? Or is it something about the unavailability of coaches and bad weather that make the whole process drag on far too long, hindering newbies from progressing?? (It isn't like coaches are always easy to find in Canada either, depending on the dz. It's the usual issue of the experienced jumpers who have the necessary rating, Coach 2, may well also be busy TI's or videots with little time.) So to recap: Some places (eg, Canada) do have RW restrictions after the basic licence, but for some reason I'm not familiar with, the process to remove the restrictions seems particularly disliked in the UK...

And indeed it seems to be, although not directly: [That's a 2015 manual in any case]

To be more clear, the only rigs of concern are those with single surface cordura construction of the reserve container, where the 'back' of the cordura is exposed and can get sticky after being exposed to high temperatures and/or humidities. So this latest bulletin seems to be BS-ATOM-25-002 from Zodiac (ex Parachutes de France) although the French Federation makes it the core of what they label BS/PF/11072016 (which doesn't really add anything more). These new bulletins also refer to the 2015 bulletin BS-ATOM-25-001, which basically said if one finds a sticky container at a repack (or if found after a check due to concern about storage conditions), the container has to be rebuilt.

What specifically did the DZ write on the rental agreement form? Or is the situation vague? My DZO might be a bit of a jerk about some things, but he has made it very very clear on the rental forms what the situation is. For their "student equipment" the DZ is responsible for losses (although a student is expected to chip in, in some moderate amount, with any search); for their different "rental equipment" the jumper is fully responsible (and it is always left unpacked -- so the renter packs it or pays for the pack and assumes full responsibility.)

I can understand no hands gripping the floater bars above the doorway (where "too good a grip" is possible), but it seems pretty normal to have a hold on the front edge of the door. I don't know what your leg position is, but if you can have them spread more, left one under you, and right one further inside the airplane, then you can push off better with the inside leg, pushing yourself outward. That leg will be less folded up than one that's right under you, with whatever position you have to adopt at your DZ to balance in the doorway. (Of course any thoughts of changing things must be cleared with your instructors.) Most students would be happy with a Twin Otter, providing them with one of the biggest doors in the industry, and very easy exits...

Another thing to consider, is how good you really are at skydiving related things vs. other possible jobs. We all like to think we're pretty reasonable at stuff, but we're not all exceptional. That doesn't mean we're all stuck with our current skills. People can discover hidden talents and change. Sometimes a dumbass happy go lucky skydiver can turn into a responsible, disciplined competitor or trainer over time. Still, some hint of extra abilities in a field can be useful, even if sheer determination and enthusiasm matter a lot too. If you want to be in skydiving in the long run full time, will you be able to bring more than the average, and do more than just maybe tandems and video? Will you be able to move up to the higher levels of the sport, as you get older? Living the dream as a full time DZ bum can fun for a while but after a few years it can get old. Someone can ask themselves whether they really will be pretty gifted at sports (and maybe do well as a competitor?) or be good at technical things (get more into rigging?) or be really good at teaching (and get into training people for ratings?) or organize activites (and become involved in running a DZ?) or even just have a good constitution (and not mind day after day in the hot sun hauling tandems?). You'll also want to consider what the market is where ever you are. Is the sport big enough, is there room for the sport to grow, is the skydiving season long enough to support many full timers, and where else can one move or temporarily work?

OK! I missed seeing the OP was PSF in 2014 but you responded to Haphazard who responded to Demonstalker1 who revived the thread in 2016 with a different question under the same title. And Demonstalker never clarified his "only 3/4 brakes" issue, what canopy is involved, or more about his needs...

While I acknowledge your warning to be careful about that, I'll note that it isn't always that big a deal in accuracy canopies, where typically one may be sinking onto a tuffet, starting in partial brakes, and are not expecting a full dynamic flare from zero brakes in the first place! Even off the tuffet, going from a crappy flare to a slightly crappier flare on a big canopy may not be a big issue. Having to do an approach with a wrap of brake lines on the hands and heavy forces on the brakes lines cutting into ones hands may not be so comfortable, especially when trying to go for the electronic pad. (As just an occasional accuracy jumper, although I made the Canadian team a couple times, I'm OK with just using regular loop toggles on my Foil 282. Others however like their wooden toggles for even better feel, sensitivity, and lack of distraction.) With an accuracy canopy one often doesn't want to give up any top end speed as they are already pretty slow, so that is a valid concern. Although I'm long armed, I did once rig up an accuracy canopy so I'd get full extension to the stall -- edit to clarify: moved toggles up the lines so I could pull right to the stall -- at the cost of a slight amount of brake with toggles up. Not ideal but it was for me an acceptable tradeoff at the time. Alternatively one could rig something up like swoopers' risers, where the brake line only dips into the brake set ring (for setting) and doesn't go thru it. When toggles are popped, the brake lines are restrained by added rings higher up near the links. Thus giving extra slack which might help the original poster both move toggles up the lines, and retain full speed with hands fully up.

Looks like a phone mangled that... I always expected burkas and chadours to be lighter weight than Sunbrella....

For those of us who don't see a lot of Atoms, can you or someone else from that side of the Atlantic, clarify how the Millenium fits in with the Atom range? There's the Atom, Atom Legend, Atom Millenium ...

I had another look and there is a "V5" written in marker inside the line stow pocket. Which sounds quite Vector like, even though Vector II freebags (for example) had simplified sizes such as "Medium" I think. I'm still guessing the bag might be from some early Vector I or Vector clone from the supposedly brief O-ring era-- perhaps before manufacturers were big on labelling all their parts in addition to the rig itself...

Ok, what the heck is this?? Found a 1 pin freebag that has 4 closing stows, in 2 rows, using O-rings. Looks remarkably like an RWS / UPT bag. The velcro closed line stowage pouch at the back is completely normal. I know elastics were sometimes used to close early reserve freebags. That supposedly didn't last long as O-rings were then tried, which were soon supplanted by Safety Stows by basically everyone. That would be before my time, say late '70s to early '80s. (Actually I long have thought a 4 stow freebag might be a good idea. If people are worried about our freebags having only 2 stows in this era of higher speed skydiving, having 4 stows using 2 Safety Stows might be a great alternative. Without going all John Sherman on the issue and using a million elastics like Jump Shack.) Edit: I know UPT & CPS have some fancier bags for use in high speed & weight situations like their military gear, but I think this bag is from earlier days.

If you bought the whole rig, the canopy never changed risers I guess. And as you said, you had jumped it that way a number of times. Were the toggles perhaps larks headed on in a conventional manner, but with the loop being able to be slipped off the tip of the toggle, rather than having to go the other way over the whole bulk of the rest of the toggle (as is proper)? That's one case where it may be possible to have the line loosen up and come off the toggle when tension is off it. Although it is still surprising for it to happen.

It would indeed be interesting to know how he dealt with the FAA. I'm no expert on the FAR's, but I suppose it might be like a stuntman jumping from a helicopter into an airbag: He isn't technically skydiving. That is, for the FAA he is not 'conducting a parachute operation'. If he went out and linked up with someone else with a parachute, as in a typical 'no parachute jump', they would be in trouble. He couldn't wear a regular non-TSO'd BASE rig as emergency backup, although a certificated emergency parachute could be acceptable -- just as a pilot is allowed to wear one for emergency use. (I don't know how easy it is to get exceptions from the FAA. Gary Connery did get permission in the UK to wear a BASE rig on his wingsuit & cardboard boxes jump I believe.)

Thanks, I'll give you guys a call today!

Can someone confirm that it is normal for the Mirage main pilot chute to have the reinforcement tapes sewn "along the grid" of the mesh, rather than "along the 45 degrees"? That's what I saw on a brand new one from them. I did email Mirage but the email bounced, after which I used their web form, but haven't heard back in a couple weeks. I just thought it unusual as it is more normal to sew tapes on the 45 to reduce distortion of the stretchy mesh. FWIW, Bill Booth has long agreed with that, and I normally only see tapes along-the-grid on ancient pilot chutes from the early '90s or before, when not everyone cared about that design detail.

Good point. In addition to plain old crappy student gear (worn harnesses and hard opening canopies), there may be something to the jumper's actions too, but I don't have a handle on it either. Students tend to have leg straps tightened up super tight (either by them or instructors), which might make bruising harder. Opening in a nice stable position in the harness probably helps too (compared to students rolling slightly or pitching head down, which makes the opening feel worse). I'll guess that another useful thing is being able to dearch a bit earlier in the sequence -- One ends up in a dearched sitting position anyway, and an experienced jumper doesn't need to hold the arch quite as long during the extraction sequence. So instead of taking more of the opening right in the crotch or through the buckles into the groin, a more experienced jumper can have the legs swung more forward earlier, and take more of the force on the back of the legs & butt. (Edit to add non-essential anecdotes : I've heard various people relate their tales of bruising to me. Whether it is the girl at her gynac or just coworkers seeing arm bruises, they have to fend off questions about whether things are OK at home, whether social services or the cops need to be called...)

Yeah Atair in the US left the sport market long ago. And "Cobalt Dan" left this forum after being quite the Atair (USA) evangelist for some years. Last time I heard about the Onyx, it was when an acquaintance threw his in the DZ bonfire about a decade back. That was his opinion of it anyway. I did find it scary on front risers due the super light pressure.

Last I recall in some Dz.com conversation on the topic years back, real Sharpies weren't acidic and won't harm nylon. But no guarantees though. Still, I've never heard of parachute components breaking from a little ink on them. Although I know my way around canopies (as an active rigger and owner of a few), I still coloured the attachments a canopy I use a lot because... it was handy to have it that way. (The DZ I'm at uses Aerodyne student and rental canopies. Everyone loves the colour coded attachment tapes... but of course it is a bit of an adjustment when a newbie gets their own canopy without that.)

That's not to be taken too strictly, and is just a very rough guide. It's hard to argue for a reserve too much smaller than your main (unless you're jumping a main much bigger than your ability level -- eg, a big demo or accuracy canopy). And it's hard to argue for jumping a reserve way bigger than your main (unless your main is a super tiny swooper). It just happens that in the medium to large size range, manufacturers have tended to make rigs with the reserve size a little smaller than the main size. I'm only guessing how the skydiving community settled into that rut, but I think the idea is if you are competent and can handle a size X main day in and day out, and you don't want to carry extra bulk around, then surely you're OK with size X minus 1 on rare occasions when you're not looking for the perfect landing but just want to get down without serious injury. Certainly one can still make the argument that when you might be in a crappy spot or even injured, a little extra square footage might be nice. Similar to rig sizing, since the time people have been jumping both square mains and reserves, I think common reserves have tended to be sized a little smaller than the typical main. Before that time, people were used to a reserve ride being a little rough anyway -- thumping in under a round reserve.