pchapman

My concerns: - Bit too much filler to advice ratio - personal preference only - #4. Holding your focus -- If you ONLY look way down the 'runway' you might not notice drift that will put you into those obstacles beside you. Terrible advice. You do want to stay aware of obstacles to the side when there's a crosswind. People over-emphasize "never look at obstacles". B.S.! - If I'm swooping close to an obstacle (or just backing a car out of a driveway), I have to glance at the obstacle to check that I'm not going to hit it. But yes don't get fixated on an obstacle. - In #5 there's a fundamental confusion over heading (direction the canopy points) and track (over the ground). It is impossible to both let the nose point where it needs to while maintaining the heading the same. (Tho' you clearly understood it in #1) "Any inputs required to keep that straight-line heading will simply increase your crab angle and point your nose into the wind, slowing you down." --> Well, not ANY inputs, as you could angle either left or right, more into or out of wind depending on how the wind changes (gusts, turbulence, wind shadow). But yes the tendency is to crab more as one slows down. And one is slowing mainly because one is flaring at some point, not because a small heading adjustment will greatly increase the headwind component. As far as flying in a straight line while flaring in a crosswind, a major point glossed over is that to maintain the straight line while slowing down, the amount of crab (and/or bank in a flare) will need to increase. - #6 - The 'wind facing position' thing is unclear, although I know what you're getting at. As one slows one would need to turn more into wind. Possibly, depending on canopy traffic, some deviation from the straight line would be acceptable at the end, curving into the wind more, as one can get into a messy position of trying to run it out at an angle to one's body while crabbing across the ground. That's where a slide can be handy if one can do it. - Good points in #1 (pilots are used to crosswinds) and #3 (your standard downwind and crosswind legs will have drifts you aren't used to, because the legs are no longer actually downwind and crosswind) While describing crosswind landings is particularly tricky, this article misses a lot.

Snicker. I'd still snicker if you painted your living room purple, and within a year later painted it off-white again. Doesn't affect my life or offend me so it's no big deal. When one reads about the chemical ingredients in tattoo inks, azo dyes, metallic salts, and how they are slowly actively moved into the lymphatic system, ugh. Even if it isn't like people with tattoos drop dead suddenly. But hey, as they say, making sausages isn't pretty either. (And I'll occasionally eat some murdered enslaved animals.) Human canvas, human etch-a-sketch. Whatever works for you.

Someone on facebook once posted two ParaGear calculators that disagreed with each other. Not sure what that was about. Before the advent of DZ management software, did anyone really care about calculating 180 days exactly?? Well yeah, the FAA. But did DZ's give a damn? Anywhere I've ever seen around where I am, if you got it packed January 15 then you'd be fine through July 15. Just add six months. Nobody cared about trying to calculate the number of days in each month relative to a nominal 30 day month. But the big difference is I'm in Canada where the 180 day rule isn't from the feds, so we always had more latitude to break the rules a little.

I saw a C-9 packed in a pilot rig once, which had a single turn of seal thread tied around the lines, about 6" below the bottom of the canopy. That's quite non standard, but I'm curious, has anyone else come across that packing variation? Has it ever been accepted regionally even if not officially, or is it some rigger's odd personal variant? Clearly on a non-diapered canopy it is designed to provide a tiny bit of staging, at least allowing the bottom of the canopy to pull out of the pack for a split second without becoming all messy. And without being strong enough to streamer the canopy!

Data card entries are an area that could be discussed a bunch in another thread! Are data cards actually just a reserve card in the eyes of the FAA, or a location for riggers to list other work performed on the harness & container?? E.g., FAA part 65.131 requires riggers to keep detailed records of they work they do, but that's in their own records. On the packing card they are supposed to note defects found on inspection, but it doesn't say anything about recording work done -- even though that may or may not go along with having found defects. But I don't know what other FARs might say. As for writing things that one DIDN'T do, I'm all for writing extra things down if it serves a useful purpose. Eg if I pack a rig in January I might write down "Cypres AAD expires end of March". Not my responsibility what the jumper or DZ does with the rig, but I'm helping out by defining what the limits are. Or as a courtesy to other riggers to keep from always checking some service bulletin they don't remember exactly, "S/B xxx N/A". Or if doing an open & reclose on a rig I write it in a different style than a normal repack -- so some DZ doesn't just skim the card, look at the most recent date, and assume it was freshly repacked. Things not done can be mentioned if it would help avoid confusion. Just my personal preference.

I remember someone posted a list of FAA rigger seals on dropzone.com, which was from 2011, but not entirely complete - for whatever arcane FAA reasons. It was "symbols.csv" but a quick search didn't find it. I can repost but someone else should find it.

It's OK if people want to say, "Airtec never tells us anything, they're arrogant, the bastards!" I can't argue much with that. It's also OK to have some skepticism about the difficult task of making an AAD recognize different flight modes, especially with wingsuits. But at least give them a chance. It's like people are saying, "How dare any company in the world even mention an upcoming product without having all marketing materials and specifications ready to publish, and a full warehouse of product ready to ship! They must maintain Apple-like secrecy until full product launch or else they lose my trust -- but as soon as they announce, they have to tell us everything, right away!"

I once came across an article on cases where citizens with guns supposedly did some good for a change: "12 times mass shootings were stopped by good guys with guns" http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/ (I didn't get around to reading it yet and can't vouch for the site, or article accuracy in any way.)

Same here as Betzilla and Councilman. Maneuvering a rig with a packed reserve under the machine can be a pain. And may cost the customer a little extra in paying for the time. If it is too awkward to do the job, or do it decently well, then a repack will be necessary. Early in the thread the legal issue came up but wasn't pursued. Is there actually a legal issue somewhere?? Sort of like some jurisdictions don't like an open & reclose on a reserve by different riggers? But in this thread's case, different parts of the rig are being worked on, so I'm not sure where the problem would be. (Riggers don't guarantee the rig won't be screwed up in the next 180 days -- they are really only stating it is legal the day they did their repack.)

I thought the US flag was a 1.9 ratio, length to height? (Canada follows the UK with a pretty common 2.0 ratio, while a bunch of countries use 1.5. Other ratios exist too.)

Interesting ideas even if the titles are a little high-falutin'. It splits up the concept of "abstract thinking" into more divisions. Some interesting thinking about causes and effects, the attribution of causes, and ones relationship relative to the universe, people, and objects. But stage 4 (Systemic) and stage 5 (Trans-Systemic) seem too similar -- It's more like he says stage 5 is if you can appreciate stage 4 enough to actually take action to change one's ways. I don't think that's a separate stage of THINKING, but the degree to which one takes action based on that. Plenty of people say "I should..." but don't always get around to whatever that is. I don't like that pigeonholing of people. I think we all operate at different stages at different times. It's a matter of to what degree one can switch when necessary. It's almost like those 'stages of grief' that one can cycle through: For example, if your printer fails to work, you simply may not know what the actual reason is internally, it might as well be magic. Stage 1: "Jesus Christ! Stupid printer! My bad luck! Inshallah!" Stage 2: "The paper is halfway out. Well, dammit, I might as well just try to wrench it out. Take that, printer! You'd better work now!" Stage 3: "I know the printer is old and has had problems before, but why is it out to get me today of all days?" Stages 4 or 5: But one might at the same time realize at a higher level of thinking, that it is an old printer that has been buggy, and that this is what one will expect if one keeps putting off either solving the issue or spending money on a new one. Bigger issues involving interpersonal relationships won't be as simple as my example, so there it can be harder to 'step back a little' and think in a more reasoned manner about the situation, its causes, and how others would perceive the issue too.

I think skydivers in general don't know a lot about shock absorbing, protective footwear, and thus are poorly placed to recommend it. Ankle support braces do exist but weren't exactly what you were looking for. Boots of various types provide support too but may be too heavy for other skydivers to want to be around you if doing any sort of formation. Some shock absorption is handy -- if I'm doing something where I may have harder landings, I'll notice that running shoes with a good thick absorbing sole are much easier on my feet than shoes that are thin and barely cushioned. There were jumper boots in the 1960's with very thick soft soles but they don't exist now as nobody really needs them. But others are right: It comes down to landing technique. An inch of the best shock absorbing sole is nothing compared to a foot or more of leg bending, such as when as one starts a PLF. For a given speed of impact, physics dictates that only thing that can reduce G-loading beyond a certain point is increasing the available deceleration distance.... And different shoes can't effectively do that.

I always assumed the packing date was supposed to be when the canopy was actually folded up and packed. And not when the pin or the seal put in place, which could be later. Interesting to see others sometimes treat it all as a wee bit flexible. I've done a bit of that too -- I really packed it one day but I'll finish sealing and signing it the next day. Close enough. But I don't make all my pack jobs during the week all appear as being on Friday if that's the day people are picking them up. I figure I'm doing a decent job for a customer if I pack their rig within the week before they plan to pick it up, or ideally within a few days. I'm neither screwing him on his 180 days by packing it a couple weeks early, nor do I feel obligated to wait to pack all Thurs night if people are picking up the next day. If one has space for opened rigs, an early inspection is sometimes handy, or at least a paperwork check. One doesn't want to have a rig sitting around for a couple weeks untouched and then when packing just before pickup, discover that the dumbass let his AAD or battery time out, or be grounded for some bulletin or big repair job. Getting back to the pack vs. date issue: At one DZ I was at, it got a little silly for a couple years. Making use of plenty of temp pins, a whole pile of rigs could all be been closed & dated the day before the DZ opened for the season... with the actual packing having been conveniently spread over the previous month. [edit:] While I don't think a packed parachute stored safely away really deteriorates much over time, this would allow December pack jobs to be dated in April if the DZ wanted it. That would really push the 'date it when you close it' idea too far, compared to what I assumed was the intent of the rules. But I could be wrong.

Does that mean you went with the design from Cirrus Hardware (UK) that's like the RW-6? (They've been mentioned a couple times on dz.)

Yeah I'm pretty sure here in Canada the supervised pack job is acceptable as it has always been. (We don't have a long list of federal regulations on skydiving or rigging, which can sometimes conflict with 'what everyone has always done'. The CSPA's rigger's rules are more casual too -- other than some privileges of different ratings, there's no long list of mandatory requirements. Just do good work that you could defend to your peers...)

To emphasize the point, I'll quote a short bit of what Councilman24 wrote: That is the conclusion that came up in other threads about rigger training. Supervised reserve pack jobs can't go into service. (in the USA) (Even if people were to accept supervised pack jobs, I'm surprised that the price would be LESS than normal. Supervising and teaching a good reserve pack job, for anything other than a nearly-graduated rigger-in-training, takes more effort than doing the job oneself!)

A quick reply: It is harder to be aware of one's legs in freefall than one's arms. Having students whose legs kick or flop around or who put asymmetrical 'body english' into their position are not uncommon. Tapping heels against each other -- heel taps -- is one technique to help with leg position issues. Forces the legs to be more even, and stimulates awareness of where one's legs are. The mantra of "Relax!" as skydiving instruction is true and useful, but can be overly simplistic and doesn't hold in every circumstance -- such as your legs doing the jellyfish thing. So yeah, then can try to hold your legs rigid in the appropriate position. I wouldn't suggest duct taping your legs together and putting on knee braces and locking the angle, but you get the idea that restraining your legs more would help.

There was a DVD version, same content I think, but some different music as a few songs had been too similar to those from better known bands. It has been so long since Crosswind came out, that there are copies on YouTube of some version. I even ripped the music and cut out the talking to create a playlist for myself.

I dug into the wording a little more -- The 5 years is a minimum expected not an average Vigil 2+ manual: It is barely changed from the Vigil II manual that states: Edit: P.S. - The battery stock number they quote is the same for the Vigil II and Vigil 2+. I suppose for replacement, it would be just a matter of whether one can open the case (I can't recall the screw types used on the 2+) and whether one is OK with breaking the warranty....

No argument there. English translation issues aside, even if their actions and intentions are reasonable, they seem to be masters at sounding just slightly weaselly about everything.

Give 'em a little slack; it could be the translation that is imperfect -- Airtec would mean that in terms of the technical configuration, technologically, it is like a new Cypres would be. They obviously aren't giving you another 12.5 years every maintenance.

Ok, so I have a customer with a rig with an old Yugoslavian square reserve parachute, something from the Kluz factory. The freebag is normal except it uses 2 elastic bands to close it, through standard brass grommets. It's legal here in Canada where no TSO is needed. It wouldn't be difficult to add grommets, channel, and bungee to convert it to a safety stow system. Although in FAA-land you could easily just stay away from something like that, what do you riggers figure the best option is: Keep the ancient elastic band system (30+ years out of date over here), just making sure to use fresh Milspec Keener elastics every time? Or upgrade to a safety stow, although that's totally messing with the original approved configuration on a critical component?

Again to throw some quick numbers into the mix: This stuff isn't relevant to the original question (sorry Jerry!), but does provide background to the argument about rounds vs. squares at high speed. Some of the UPT / CPS military tandem-style reserves are good for 180 kts, at values like 550 to 650 lbs [VR 421, HR 360, HR 400]. That's normally up to 25,000'. One variant with a reefing drogue controlled slider can do up to 35,000' -- a tougher situation even if the 180 kts is unchanged. Many of the military tandem reserves have special high speed freebags too, beyond "our" typical single safety stow. As for the military's tough single reserves for solo jumpers, things like the UPT/CPS OR series go from 360 ft sq. down to a minimum of 260 ft sq (still big!) with weights of 325 to 450lb. They are only certified to 150 kts -- like your typical PD civilian reserve. I have no idea what else is out there; I just read some brochures on the web. (And I don't recall what civilian Sigma VR-360 reserve is rated to.) So it is pretty tough to find high speed square reserves even among the military -- NOT up to 200 kts -- although they can take some heavy loads and high altitude openings.

Now knowing about upgrades and standards becomes more important rather than just accepting that "I'll automatically get whatever they are doing" at the 4/8 year check. Occasionally specific features have been advertised, that you would get added at the check -- eg, permanent opening altitude offset. But there's no version list as one might get for software. Vigil can be vague about their improvements too, but at least one has version numbers for reference -- a Vigil II from 2008 might be v2.18, LCD v2.03 for example, while a later model might be v2.50, LCD v2.28.

To the thread in general: There can be a lot of back and forth on this subject and I don't have the answers either. Everyone focuses on a different aspect of the situation and it is hard to reconcile which are typically more important. Do you care more about extra high speed and low level, or moderate speeds & altitudes? And at what price level? Is one comparing a typical round vs. a square, or the very best rounds against a square? Throwing around some arguments, really quickly and without a final answer: Sure, C-9's are really tough. Yeah but how many are put in new pilot rigs? And who doesn't want a diaper these days? Well, sometimes they can be added but that's for another day. And if deciding whether "rounds are better", what about wimpy Phantoms & Phantom Aerostars out there? 140 kts max, and low recommended weights. And TSO C23b testing that's pretty sketchy. Even the Preserve I and III (not the V), common bailout canopies, are TSO C23b, 150 kts max and 220lbs or less. That's no better speed than PD reserves, which usually have higher weights like 254lb allowed, and a more trustworthy TSO with more margin. Strong Lopo's at least got upgraded to C23c Cat b, 150kts, 254 lbs Sure there's the pricy Butler high speed rounds but you don't see many around. Or some GQ bailout rigs use the a GQ T4000 Aeroconical good to 180 kts! Yet a bailout rig with a square will likely also cost more than one with a wimpier round. Should one expect high speed opening from fast aircraft, or will the pilot typically have time to wait a couple seconds during which high speeds will quickly be reduced? So rounds are typically lower speed than squares yet some rarer rounds can be higher speed. Is a temporary inversion really acceptable? Burning holes in a reserve is so 1970s; hopefully with no LLB damage. How likely are deployment issues when dealing with diapered rounds? The information available always seemed vague to me. No time for better arguments so I'll leave it at that.