pchapman

I think that's skydiving... But seriously, it can be hard to tell as an experienced jumper to what degree one is relying on an audible. So even if one is saying one is relying on the audible, one may well be at times keeping track out of the corner of one's eye how the altitude is doing. Well, one hopes... And the more people one is with, the less likely everyone will go low -- Being in an 8 way starts to be like having 8 audibles in one's helmet. (The complacency issue I find that affects me is that breakoffs are are often so high that one starts to not care as much about altitude, because there's extra already built in. Not like when one broke at 3.5 -- there when everyone went low, you were LOW. When one adds in doing video for tandems, or doing AFF / PFF, one gets used to having so much extra altitude. Just something to watch out for, whatever one's reliance on the audible. )

Just depends where you are, what the local DZ's rules are, and what equipment they have. Some places it is easier to do a tandem at that size than an AFF. (For example, I've taken people as large as 300lbs on a tandem -- just sortof in legal limits at my skinny weight a few years back -- but the DZ didn't have gear or instructors at the time who would handle an AFF student that big.) Good for you that you were able to find a place that would train you!

Another factor making it less of a problem: On student jumps one typically has plenty of extra altitude.

Tapping heels together is the standard advice for leg symmetry issues in freefall. ("Heel tap" brings up a few threads) Don't know how well it will work coming off the step of a C-182 or whatever. It could make a student less stable for a moment while it is being attempted, but still could create an overall improvement. Practicing at home can help too, including feet on a couch (while lying on the floor) so one can more realistically push down and out with the legs, as if against the wind, rather than tensing them to lift the feet up. I recall someone also having success after they managed to not be distracted by everything else going on (presumably getting the rest of the body position correct) and focus on the sensations from their leg muscles, that they are tensioned equally. One wants to step off that step and kick the legs into position, instead of forgetting what the legs are doing and thinking only of how one just fell off an airplane. It is much easier to get legs in position if stepping off to the SIDE rather than BACK off a C-182 step -- the latter tending to force the left leg into a very de-arched position the moment one leaves the step. This issue gets missed with some instructional techniques. (It isn't 100% stepping to the side, as the wind takes you back, and you are stepping back a little as you clear your face from the strut area. But the focus is on getting out to the side, not going straight back.)

So how did it work in the old days? Wasn't there Australian skydiving when everything was military surplus? Doesn't anyone jump vintage gear there? No WWII recreation groups doing static line jumps, or ex military guys using military style gear like one sees in the USA? Or do they all have to find actual military trained riggers? There are no rules that a military certification can be considered to be equivalent to TSO certification? (US FAA rules say an approved parachute for rigging purposes is either something TSO'd, or a US military approved parachute.) Unless there are rules we don't know about, it does make it seem as if Australia has a more strict split between military and civilian gear and rigging.

I had been jumping a Nav 240 and the instructors (including an AFF instructor) assured me I would be fine and that it was a docile canopy. They neglected to tell me it was a shaped 7 cell (i.e. rather different characteristics from the rectangular 9 cell Nav) and it was a shock [...] I don't think it is an aggressive canopy as such, it's just a big difference flying it compared with a Navigator and I was completely unprepared for that. An interesting example of where a difference in canopies is almost trivial to experienced jumpers, but a surprise to someone who really only has experience with one or two canopies at all. Unless it is a brand new instructor, they may not have flown the DZ's student canopies in many years, or those particular canopy types, ever. It can take some work to get feedback from students back to the instructing team so they know what to brief students on, other than to say, "You'll find it handles a little differently, have fun."

Locally it is pretty common for old containers to be upgraded to tuck tabs, or easier to build, magnets. But I'm not in FAA-land so TSO's aren't a worry. And the results may not be as bombproof for freefly as more carefully tested gear is. Whether a manufacturer would throw something together, for a rig that probably won't match their current patterns, I'm not so sure. Your question still stands.

Re: the 3 freefall pull priorities Ugh, I had forgotten that they're actually in there. I personally still find them horribly confusing. But at least you try to make the best of it and explain.

p14+ Quantum Leap Twin Otter. Yeah, single point attachments and long lanyards aren't great, for flail injuries, rotational whipping about, a couple feet of nearly unrestrained movement and so on. Plus we always seem to be reaching towards the front of the plane for the next available belt, when we really want to be reaching well towards the back of the plane... but there aren't enough belts, in the right place, for that. But no restraints and hoping to do a Dan B-C and be cushioned by the pile of bodies stuffed into the front of the Otter is a worse option in my mind, in general. You'd perhaps agree that our belts are more for a semi-serious accident than a really serious accident. Same for helmets, whether in skydiving or riding a bicycle.

Humour (fake) not history (real). Just to let people know.

A big aside: You will likely know this Lee, but for the thread in general I'll note that there is an Aircrew / Pilot version of the CYPRES, with a green button. If a pin is pulled by a lanyard on exit (or by a manual handle), the unit starts calculating and will fire if above 78mph descent and below 13000'. That's very useful if a pilot is injured during the bailout (hitting the tail etc), but not at very low altitude. Presumably there's also some sort of time delay so if the aircraft is in a steep dive there's a chance to clear the aircraft after the lanyard is pulled. I imagine it would be a little trickier for a computer to figure out if you are actually still in the aircraft or not, compared to skydiving, if the aircraft has the canopy or door open and is diving. At $2500 that CYPRES it is also priced a little differently than the average AAD. Basic specs at a seller: http://parachuteshop.com/automatic_parachute_release_open.htm It's not even listed on SSK's or Airtec's product list though -- as if it is a specialized item, maybe sold more to the military than anything, that isn't normally advertised...

Someone else might have better info than me but this is the way I see it: The beach ball technique I think is mainly just old fashioned. Old techniques get handed down without critical evaluation, especially in areas without as much coaching development. If one goes from perfectly flat, to dearched, then one starts taking away surface area and there's less drag again. If it were a solid object, like a disk, going from flat to cupped would indeed probably add drag -- the more draggy shape making up for the slight loss of projected frontal area. But for a person with arms and legs sticking out, the limbs don't really create any cup -- although one might get a little cupping effect from the torso. Sometimes the "cup the beach ball" sentiment is understandable in that it is hard to get people to get away from the arch. So a person might go low on an RW jump and claim they went flat for maximum drag, but video shows them still partially arched including chin way up and lower legs pointing up. So it would be easy to say that they need to cup more -- technically true but imprecise about the end goal. Hmm, I can see there could also be confusion regarding definitions of what is flat or cupped. A guy with more of a belly, if he is to get the front of his body flat to the wind, he may need to be dearched, cupped, with his spine. So he is both 'flying flat' and 'hugging the beach ball' at the same time, without contradiction. So it can be a matter of precision of meaning in addition to newer vs. older teaching techniques.

See my post: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4499441#4499441 -- Owner of a Sabre 1 135 and FX 88 with my own pockets on the sliders. And a Parafoil with a 2 ft long pocket slider, also seen in the above thread.

I had a video like that downloaded as: AIRBORNE_IN_MID_AIR_COLLISION_CUT_AWAY_IN_LESS_THAN_500_ft_ALTITUDE

There is more than one reserve that could be involved in this discussion. I learned from Stong's web site that there is: a) the traditional Master Reserve (425ft sq) for the Dual Hawk Tandem. That tandem's manual strongly emphasizes no pro-packing. b) the new Patronus reserve "modeled after the SET-366 main and designed as a semi-elliptical reserve for the Strong Tandem System. Approved for use in both the TNT and the DHT Tandem Systems". Strong's letter might have had more weight if a more specific concern had been voiced. Perhaps they are indeed concerned about pro-packing a reserve they have otherwise always packed another way. For typical sport reserves there was little concern about transitioning from flat packs to propacks. For tandems, the treatment of the nose of the canopy has been more important -- one doesn't just open up wide the center cell nose as on a typical sport reserve. So that aspect of a tandem reserve pack could have a significant effect on opening shock, structural integrity, and inflation time. I'll grant that Strong could have a concern about that.

You stuck to "just the facts" so I'll be the overly sarcastic one. (Even though there really can be compatibility issues that aren't always obvious, and experience does count for something in developing tandem gear...) In a similar vein to Stong's letter, don't forget this one:

You didn't "modify" the container... some tacking just happened to be temporarily threaded between the existing fibres of the pack's nylon.

I have sometimes wondered about tacking or sewing a couple pieces of foam, wrapped in fabric, into a d-bag, top or sides. Never actually tried it. I have tacked or sewn stiff foam (enclosed by fabric) into main containers, either against the backpad or reserve wall, to change the pack volume. Depending on the design, the foam is semi-permanent or can be slipped out to change the pack volume. My personal rig easily handles everything from a 75 (no crossbracing) to a 170. I get the impression that doing such things was uncommon years ago and extremely rare nowadays. And I wasn't worried about the FAA's rules.

I can see why there's sometimes skepticism about new rules -- because some of us just don't hear about problems happening, and don't have much communication with those who have an overview of the situation. So we don't see that there's much of an issue. A couple recent posts in this thread were by people asking 'how often does such and such actually happen?'. Or there's the issue, also touched on recently, of how one sees videos from apparently big dropzones with lots of experience, with behaviour that isn't sanctioned by the manufacturers. Without other feedback, one may feel pressure to emulate the cool kids. My first gut reaction was to think, "Really? Idiots! I've never ever, ever heard of that happening in 10+ years of doing tandems, not locally, not anywhere." So you can see why someone like me, without the same overview of the industry, might laugh at what seems like a stupid new rule -- even if I agree that regular handles checks are a good idea (and not only in freefall). So, Tom, your feedback on dz.com about the tandem industry is useful, even if I'm not always in agreement about what rules to make.

And then there are crime movies in general. Surely the actors involved can't be promoting crime? Similarly for disaster movies, or movies about evil conspiracies, or movies showing smoking. But yeah there is the issue of to what degree one puts one's money where one's mouth is, to what degree personal beliefs get pushed aside when there's money to be made. (And with The Gunman getting 5.6 on IMDB and 13% on Rotten Tomatoes... I suppose it isn't exactly a victory for Sean Penn. Guns don't kill movies; people kill movies.)

Not your personal fault of course. But in any modern aviation industry, even cargo has to be strapped down to keep it from shifting. G-load requirements may or may not be high but retention is necessary.

The Sick and Twisted thread, for example, didn't just get locked, but was totally deleted. (Into the "recycle" forum which is shows up in searches, but can't be viewed.) The "Word Association" thread with 8700+ replies has been locked but hasn't been deleted. Why? Site owners less worried about NSFW content? I have never really been involved in the giant threads in Bonfire but it is curious that things have changed so much with little notice or explanation. (Maybe I've missed it somewhere.) Now I know the rules state: Although I don't know the history here, it seems as if policy has effectively changed without being clear about it. Policy seems inconsistent with the above rules: It says long threads may be locked but but that posts (not entire threads) encouraging multiple short responses may be locked. Perhaps someone claims that "all" posts in a long thread, no matter how well intentioned, are somehow encouraging multiple short responses. This seems to be a bizarre interpretation of the stated rules. Of course there are catch all rules so that anything can be deleted if they want, 'you are a guest here', nyah nyah nyah. Very hard to tell what might arbitrarily disappear or be locked! Another thread with 34000 views and nearly 700 posts is OK and apparently not a threat. ("Put up a damn picture of something fun you've been doing") Hope it doesn't happen in other forums too with skydiving history or accident information or rigging knowledge -- although threads stay shorter (other than DB Cooper). Is someone allowed to start a post called "Weird and interesting stuff (but don't post more than X replies per day or this will disappear)"?? Disclaimer: I'm not trying to make this a gripe post -- subject to removal according to the rules -- yet this might end up being classed as a gripe thread subject to removal. I'm addressing the history of events in this forum in a serious way to help understand them. References: Locked "Word Association (the New DZ.com Game)" Deleted "BillyVance's sick and twisted and/or NSFW photo attachment thread"

Interesting to see that those new USPA BSR's pretty much mirror a couple of those Tandem Commandments, which are considered generally good practice. The actual wording isn't exactly the same though. But I've never quite understood the antagonism against greater than 90 degree turns. A turn of 180 degrees can be a slow, gradual turn, and doesn't imply a "hook" turn or "steep diving turn", or a lack of any straight final approach. (Where a straight final of some seconds provides an allowance for error in judgement during the turn.) It makes it sound like a gradual turn of 180 and a long final is more dangerous than a low 90 hook...

Yeah I use my leverage tool. Mines a little different than standard, with the axle / crank mounted on supports on top of a plate, but in any case the dimensions often allow it to be used with the washer in the groove as mcordell says. (I might make an additional plate with a smaller gap in it so there's less bending force on the washer as with the larger gap.) Sounds like his 'two hand pull with an anchor' way also gets a good effect, compared to the old Cypres manual 'one arm pulling in each direction' One can hand pull a loop good and tight, but putting it on the tensioner one easily gets another 1/8" without much effort. Some of that 'stretch' probably would happen during the pack job itself (especially when packing a tight rig with a leverage tool), or maybe some might happen over time while it is packed, I don't know. But it is nice to be able to plan loop sizes with less variation between the plan and the final result. I think I got into the super-stretching after seeing somewhere that one can make the marks on a Cypres loops just 3/8" apart, between the zero point and the knot point. But that was way too little... IF trying to hand stretch once the loop was already threaded around the Cypres washer and creating friction.

Going back to this older conversation, I just packed a brand new Vector III with an Optimum 143 reserve that's supposed to be middle of the range for the rig size. (Fairly cool and dry conditions, 64 F, 40% relative humidity.) With a loop of about 4 3/4" I needed to let the rig sit a day to even close it with my leverage tool. I knew it would be too tight: it pull tested about 40 lbs. Started again with a loop just a tad under 5" long, also after stretching it with a leverage tool. (With hand stretching, one has to allow for more tightening of the loop over time and thus 'stretch' in the loop. The classic reason for a loop to be 1/8" longer after the repack cycle than when you packed it.) Anyway, this time it closed fairly 'normally' with the leverage device and tested to around 22lb, just barely ok. That's at about the top end of one of their stated closing loop sizes, and above another. They don't even say "should be" but say "will be", like it is mandatory. I try to follow what 'the book' says about shaping a reserve but don't go crazy on the 'secret stuff'. Maybe it is the humid Florida air that they ignore as a factor, or maybe I still suck at packing after 1300+ reserves, but I remain pretty skeptical about what manufacturers say in their manuals....