pchapman

The Advanced Benny's are nice, with a better quality liner than the standard Benny's. Like some other SkySystems products, they could do with a revival. I see the advanced liners are available in all sizes still at ChutingStar, so at increased cost one could still get the basic Benny and add the advanced liner.

That accident must have been discussed on dz before? I remember seeing the video. (That being said, I think in the past you've been able to dig up a variety of interesting videos from the depths of youtube for discussion here!) Edit: Australia, reserve tension knots, spiralling into a backyard in a city

Yeah, dremeling rings off a rig wasn't the most fun when I did it. (Changing mini rings to RW-6's.) It was doable, but I had to mask off the rest of the piece of hardware and whole rig with tape and garbage bags. Think I kept pretty much all of the metal bits out of the webbing. Bolt cutters would have been convenient to have.

What you're saying makes sense. Still, maybe sundevil was thinking of an AMOC style thing, an alternate means of compliance that won't be for most people. Guess one could always contact the factory if one wanted a plead a special case. Might even fall under US rigger discretion, but I'll leave that to others to argue. Just a US rigger replacing one legal base ring with another legal base ring, if you happen to have a pair of RW-6's kicking around. (Leaving hip & chest rings out of the discussion.)

So... I guess DSF hardware isn't going to appear on future Vortex rigs? While everyone is stepping up and taking a huge hit, it is particularly unfortunate for DSF, and this all makes it sound like they have no clue how this happened. While some problems are very difficult to trace, and one can't have records and data on everything, the situation would be so much easier if they would point to some goof up, some error or omission in a particular month. It hasn't been explained whether any other bad parts have been found, whether they had some items from different production runs that could be pull tested (for material deficiency) or x-rayed (for cracks) or whatever. Nor what the problem was on the one part we know broke. As it is, they have basically condemned years worth of production back to at least 2011 (from my experience, but not specified by the companies involved). Wonder what DSF is doing about all the military hardware they make for, presumably, the South Korean military. Tough situation.

I'll just note that he did say about the jump he went low on, that "I had my hands on the back risers and I was pulling like a mad-man". So although he didn't mention what he did on the second snivelly jump, it may have been implied that he was on rears or trying something. I'm sure he learned a good lesson about how easy it is to lose altitude awareness...

I've noticed from a skydiver discussion on facebook that the classic skydiving video Crosswind has shown up on YouTube in a few places. I still like the music from it -- and the associated skydiving images that come to mind with the music -- so the music from the video has been ripped and posted as a torrent. https://kat.cr/crosswind-2001-ripped-music-skydiving-video-t11864664.html The sometimes odd voice narration has been edited out with reasonably decent crossfades so one has individual, music-only tracks. Doing so may have been a bit of a waste of time in this era of abundant free-ish music, but those tracks are still good ones. (Indeed, all the stories say the later DVD version changed music from the VHS version because some of it had been too close to music from more well known bands.) While the last threads on dz about Crosswind are over a decade old, some of the skydiving on the video is still quite good. While two way over-unders on wingsuits are dull, the swoops, smoke jumps, and freeflying through an RW star were still nicely filmed, and the RW BASE jumps are still impressive.

Dang it, thanks, should have just gone with twice the length, four times the area, eight times the volume. Messed up the square-cube rule I quoted...

Yes gravity affects everyone the same. We'd keep on accelerating the same (alongside a feather and bowling ball) in a vacuum. Air resistance basically works the same for everyone, but the total amount depends on our surface area facing the airflow. (Plus shape to some degree, streamlined or not. But none of us are streamlined like a wing) However the ratio of air resistance to mass changes because the area to mass ratio changes as things get bigger or smaller. (The square-cube law.) Double the area of the side of a cube, and the volume is 4 times as much. Or in less technical terms, you may only be 20% taller than some smaller girl, but you could be, who knows, twice her weight. So at a given equilibrium speed, the force from the air might keep the small jumper from keeping on accelerating towards the speed of light, as the upwards force of the air matches the downwards force of her weight. (I won't get into minor issues of weight vs. mass vs. buoyancy.) For you at the same speed, you will have a little more air resistance from a somewhat larger surface facing the wind, but a whole lot more weight, so you keep accelerating to a faster equilibrium speed.

I found one customer with a 2012 Vortex that has DSF rings stamped "11", presumably 2011, used for the hip rings too. So PS had been using the DSF hardware for a while. (And I'll join an armed militia if anyone wants to take my 4 precious RW-6 separable rings outta my hands!)

I remember that when we had a CSPA e-mail chat list, he was a participant on that, thus helping bridge the sometimes large communications gap between CSPA committees and the average skydiver. Blue skies.

Oh, it's super easy for any OWNER to check, and word gets passed around faster these days. But as a RIGGER wanting to do a little extra for customers (like tell them their rig might be grounded), do I start messaging a customer who has a rig from 2013? From 2009? Only from 2014? No big deal in the end, and my rigging records in recent years are electronic and easily searchable for the few Vortex owners I pack for, but Parachute Systems could have provided some rough date range for which customers I should scare.

I would argue that commercial pilots often don't have a ton of choice either. Don't think about a senior B777 pilot doing a couple long distance flights a month, think about the guy flying a Caravan on multiple sectors. He's got his route, and he is given a pile of passengers and cargo. He may work in a rough neighbourhood, flying in areas with bad weather and icing. With an aircraft of marginal performance when heavy and in bad weather. And sometimes he'll get unlucky and fate will give him an engine or systems failure. That being said I'm can't argue in detail to what degree a cop's job may or may not be statistically more dangerous than a pilot's. In the cases where there's a public outcry about a cop's behaviour, sometimes those cops seem to be the ones eager to take out any possible threat and avoid taking the time to try to de-escalate. (While I am quite concerned about possibly unjustified killings by cops, as related in many news stories in the past few years, it would as a balance be interesting to see some stats or read stories of justified shootings by cops. Yeah, gunning down some really nasty folks who at the time of being shot, were indeed a direct and significant threat to the life of others. Have to look at both sides...to be fair and balanced and not be too lefty.) [Edit: Actually the recent Washington Post link is useful. While the cases of shootings by cops are described only very briefly, there are good examples of people who had it coming to them, based on their actions at the moment.]

No problem. I do expect the bulletin will get revised once more is known. But if all rigs with DSF rings are grounded, then there is a date range for those rigs that are grounded. (I have known where other companies never bothered to issue a bulletin, just handling a few isolated problems on a case by case basis. I remember that from a couple bent harness rings. So it is good that PS did issue a bulletin quickly.)

Oh goody, didn't know we were into East Asian hardware now, for gear sold in the States. That's not some generic rant against foreigners; I'm saying that more in the sense of, "Great, another company to keep track of...", because every time there's a new company in the gear business, they may be an increased risk of issues early on. (Disclaimer: That's not to say that there haven't been problems with hardware built or sold by US companies like Capewell or RWS or Wings or RI etc. And Daesung Forge apparently already make hardware for paragliding (which South Korea has experience with) and stuff typical of US style military gear (eg, Capewell releases)). Given that rigs with DSF rings are grounded, therefore current production is not using DSF rings. Too bad the bulletin didn't say what date range was involved. It would help when notifying rigging customers.

If one doesn't buy or build a specialized soft bag for holding a bagged canopy plus holding its risers in place, I find that plastic storage bins are a great cheap way to hold canopies. Some typical sizes fit typical canopies. On a quality bin, the bin cover will snap on over top of the risers, without any sharp edges, holding the risers in place. The down side is that one does have to be a little careful about handling the bin -- if you drop it and the cover pops off, the risers could get all mixed up. (To be more secure, one can take additional steps like using a double ended accessory carabiner (S shaped) to snap the rings from both risers together, or make some additional anchor on the bin to make sure the risers stay in place. )

You can find it on archive.org, plugging in the original Sid's rigging address.

I wonder if someone should apply for CSPA membership in Bill's name… after all, his lifetime suspension must now be lifted! I went to Bill's service today. There were plenty of family there, plenty of Bill's friends from his church, and just a few skydivers. The ones I noticed were Brian Bowman (jump buddy of Bill's from way back); Rob Price (Skypuppy here) and his wife; Joe Chow (Skydive Toronto owner), Rachel V., and myself. Some can't make it due to work of course, for example Beatnik who is far out of town. At least Bill isn't forgotten among old timers and those interested in skydiving history. Bill did contribute on dropzone.com of course as chuteless, sometimes with tales from the old days, and occasionally with advice from the old days...that I'm not always sure applies these days! Bill Cole could be a real nice guy but occasionally grumpy and argumentative. But if he hadn't been a little headstrong he wouldn't have been the skydiver he was. Bill was sore for a while when Beatnik and I set a CSPA night altitude record in 2012, as Bill's record was higher and he had had to prove his altitude with a complex mechanical recording barograph. His was indeed a lot higher, we acknowledged that, but it wasn't done through the CSPA's system, so it is the Canadian record but not the lesser CSPA record. A few years ago I rescued an old Delta II from being thrown out. It turned out to have been Cole's, with his name sewn on the panels. Bill had no problems with me having it, but after borrowing it back, couldn't bear parting with it again. He sent it out to be repaired before use. But realizing that jumping it again might not be the best thing, it then went to Beatnik, who jumped it at Bill Booth's big 50th anniversary bash in Deland early in 2015! So a little of Bill's gear lives on. Some years back Skypuppy and Beatnik did work on the CSPA to let bygones be bygones and after a lot of work (and a few years I think) were successful in having Bill's day altitude record (36,916') recognized by the CSPA and not just the FAI. A couple years back I looked through Bill's scrapbooks, full of newspaper clippings and photos, and took photos of a bunch of pages. Maybe I'll upload some somewhere. (Will check with his family first.) His daughter Crystal I believe keeps all his skydiving mementos. Bill kept on wanting to come back for one last jump. His official retirement jump was in 2007, but he made a couple more after that. His last solo was 2012, and last jump was a tandem in 2013, when Crystal was doing student jumps at the Parachute School of Toronto. Bill had "only" about 860 jumps but as he told one reporter years ago (as seen in his scrapbook), "Every one of my jumps counted for something. There's no quantity, but damn good quality."

Military Spectres? It didn't take much googling to find stuff like this, from 2011: etc. So the original story sounds possible.

[sarcasm] Let's face it, Nevada is an "open driving" state, where most anyone can drive a car in public. Many in the US do want to drive cars around. People think that if you have a car, it will make you safer when a criminal shows up with a car. Maybe so. Yet nobody else with a car rammed the woman's car before she plowed into pedestrians. So much for what car drivers keep claiming, that "we'll all be safer when people have more cars to defend us against crazies with cars". I think statistics will show that simply having a car is not enough -- only professional driver training will equip someone to react properly and use a car in a life or death situation. I support licensing and registration of cars. I acknowledge that some country folks have a dozen of them out back and it would seem like city folks, who may not see much need to own a car, are imposing needless regulation on them. Someone will likely blame the victims in this tragedy too. If the victims weren't all pinko liberal tree-hugging pedestrians who live in their own fantasy world, and had armed themselves with a couple tons of car around them, they wouldn't have been nearly as likely to have been killed or injured, would they?! People have to take responsibility for their own lives! [/sarcasm]

Yeah, saw it at a pre-screening in Toronto a week back. Invites were given out to skydivers at a few DZ's and the local wind tunnel, and a hang gliding school too. (Not sure why; none of that sport in the movie) The guy who played Johnny Utah was there, Luke Bracey, as was one of the producers or something like that. Overall verdict: Well, it was watchable when parking one's brain with friends in a theatre, but it wasn't that good a movie. Their emphasis on the action sequences did put the plot somewhat in the background. Still, it made sense for the FBI agent to be slowly trying to work his way "in" with the bad guys as they go through sporting adventures. The producer and actor said they travelled to something like 11 countries on 4 continents in 6 months while making the movie. So there was some nice background scenery. They also proudly said that they did a lot of "in camera" work to minimize CGI. I'm a little old fashioned as it still seemed chock full of CGI. At least there were real people usually in real environments, maybe with some CGI background work for dramatic effect. Sometimes they tried too hard. Jumping off Angel Falls with no parachute, and living, as the culmination of some weird spiritual quest to both rob rich companies and attain the greatest extreme sports achievements? The action sequences were sometimes so chopped up with super quick edits and multiple camera angles, that it became hard to follow the action. That's sometimes becoming too common these days. If you want an exciting wingsuit proximity flying seqence, without a fake "woosh" noise every few seconds as they fly by a cliff or tree, just go to youtube and watch Dream Lines or something like that. (Hmm, two of the wingsuiters listed in the credits are dead already.) At least the action in the sports sequences was filmed outdoors using some good athletes, even if highly edited, and put together into less than believable scenarios. In the down time between action sequences, people spouted a bunch of stuff trying to be philosophical stuff about life and adventure. I'm no movie critic but the quotes and one liners seemed rather hackneyed, so I'm not sure they'll attain any cult status down the road. My favourite frustration (as a skydiver getting picky) is when a cargo pallet stacked high with paper money, pretty much into a cube, was dropped out of a C-130. The netting around the money got cut and it all starts fluttering away. That thing, CGI'd, flew so amazingly stable after dumping off the ramp. Despite the massive mass, it fell at a convenient freefall speed to skydive with, and didn't seem to vary speed much when the bills started to all fly away in the wind, totally changing its mass to surface area ratio. It sure didn't tumble and jump around like cars dropped over the Arizona desert in old Joe Jennings videos. AFF instruction would be so easy if we had students as stable as that pallet of money! If someone really wants to go see the new Point Break, why not, go for it, have a laugh. If you're a bit sceptical about dumb action movies, skip it. Edit to add all this: There are IMDB reviews already and they are even harsher. A few quotes I liked from amateur reviews: "the pace is awful they jump from scene to scene like monkeys jump from tree to tree. " " It's littered with so much "save the planet" preachy acts as the writing struggles to place FBI agent in the hippie nirvana angle. The motivation is just a mess of random vague one-liners, even the on-screen characters are perplexed by it. " "One of the charms of the original, while it had some great action sequences, even the characters are interesting to watch. Even if it's trifle, it's still worth spending your time. Now, it somehow becomes uninteresting filler, " "The characters have nothing at all about them; they all seems to merge into one hipster bearded blob on the screen"

Who knows, maybe they do expect a maximum in service. But if the constraints according to Poynters are a) min 80 lbs breaking strength, b) max .011 oz/linear yard, and c) cotton material, then maybe there isn't a lot of room to play in terms of strength, unless better weaving technology and improved cotton genetics have changed things since the spec came out. Plus someone might not sell to a milspec if their version costs a bunch more. In any case, since we're not talking about volume production, then the OP can test whatever roll he's using.

Just speculation: One step would be to get a hold of a Poynter's manual. Break cord is the Type I, 1/4" version of that MIL-T5661. Most others are higher strength. One could also look at thread & cord, there's a whole range of sizes. An example is 5 cord at 31 or 40 lbs minimum depending on whether it is Nylon or Cotton milspec style. But what's actually available easily, I have no idea. All the numbers are minimum breaking strengths. How much tolerance there is, constrained by a requirement to be under a certain weight per length, who knows. Probably not too much but one would want to test. Some skydiving stores do have Light Super Tack, at 50 lbs instead of the usual 80 lb. Then there's always the 'small nylon bolts' that people talk about for ring sights etc. One can get some at Home Depot (in the US/Can). But I don't know their strengths. With a ring sight the idea might be that even if a caught line doesn't snap it off, manual grabbing the sight will provide plenty of leverage to snap it. I imagine a tricky part with breakaway mounts is the issue of forces applied in different directions. If the mount is taller, one can get issues of leverage. A straight up pull might stress the break cord directly, while a bump on the front or back can add a lot of stress from leverage -- whether that is a line catching it at an angle, or bumping into another jumper on a bad group exit. That makes it harder to know what strength is correct to help in an emergency but not lose your expensive camera too easily. The graphic below shows the issue: If a mount sitting on a helmet with a single break cord at the bottom breaks after 50 lbs of direct pull force, then if the geometry gives a 3 to 1 leverage ratio, a 17 lb bump will snap the camera off. A lower, squatter mount would help, especially if one were doing a low profile side mount rather than a taller gopro style thing up top. (Multiple smaller ties at the corners might help too, but that gets into other issues.) So does one go for a breakable mount, or just go for a mount with a manual release? [inline detachable-camera-mount-leverage.jpg ]

Well that almost normal looking orange "TSO label" is indeed subtly different from the usual... because in all the fine print no TSO is mentioned! Interesting catch. Edit: But it does say Para-Flite New Jersey. So it is still in question, is this a brilliant knockoff, or did some TSO labels in those days not bother to mention the TSO itself, because it was assumed? The manufacture date, possibily reinked for clarity, is in a rather European format, and I don't know about that product number. I'll let those more experienced comment further.

To summarize the first link that BIGUN provided: Riggers stated that PISA in South Africa had produced the Para-Flite Swift under license, but without a TSO production authorization. It wasn't intended for the US market. Nothing was said specifically about the Swift Plus, but it does show that at least some Para-Flite reserves may exist without a TSO label or stamp. It wouldn't occur to many riggers that a brand name TSO'd reserve might show up in their loft without a TSO! For the OP: So does the info on that canopy show a South African origin rather than Para-Flite in the USA?