pchapman

The problem was all the spins "all the way coming down". If you tell a tandem instructor that doesn't make you feel good, they shouldn't be doing it. It's about your fun, not his. And there is almost no need ever for any skydiver to continuously spiral. So not being able to spiral a lot shouldn't be a problem. Since you are particularly prone to motion sickness, it might be a problem for you in skydiving, but it might not. If the airplane is rocking around a lot on a hot, bumpy summer day, maybe that won't be good for you. People do acclimatize to new types of motions, although that can take time. So it is all hard to tell. I can understand an instructor wanting to play it safe. On the other hand, it is possible that you'll have no serious problems when learning to skydive. (Just like someone learning to fly might throw up if taken up for aerobatics, but do fine during regurlar flying. And if regular flying also makes them queasy, which can happen, then they just can't go flying as many times a day or for as long. With skydiving one isn't up there that long, so you're only committed for 5 minutes at a time, at the most, once out the door. Before that point, one can choose to ride back down with the plane, although that may cost something.)

They're using the Arabic numeral "2" rather than the Roman numeral "II".

What was concluded? The thread was rather long and thus on quick examination it wasn't clear what the issue was with the HMA lines Stiletto. Reference: Truffer fatality thread http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4490938;

Accumack PM'd me and in conversation offered some additional info which I'm sure he wouldn't mind sharing: The bit about coiling the lines in the main container makes sense. Poynter's book 1 has some info on how to add loops to a main deployment bag, to allow stowing all of the lines, and not just the locking stows. Rigging organizations also came out with warnings about the coiling practice.

Accumack, do you know anything about the development of the velcro-closed line stow pouch? That seems to me a novel development for square canopy deployment, although I don't know all the history. Rubber bands or fabric channels had typically been used to restrain lines on previous rounds and squares in bags and sleeves.

I think they mean "out of sequence deployment", thinking back to pre-Sigma days, when there was a pin or short cable holding the pack closed, while the drogue is attached by a 3 ring nearby. Similar to what the Strong tandem still does. If the pack opened one could have the bag dancing about overhead with the drogue still attached, maybe main risers out of the covers too, a sort of horseshoe of sorts, and quite dangerous if emergency procedures were not carried out in the correct sequence. This is opposed to the Sigma disk that both closes the pack and anchors the drogue all in one, making it very very difficult to have the bag out but drogue still attached.

Hmm, what's this doing here: [inline vlcsnap-2014-09-28-21h12m11s14-small.jpg] I never really thought much about what to do if a toggle works its way free -- from riser and container -- in freefall, other than to stop the freefall at the earliest convenient moment and deal with whatever the canopy does. Yesterday I did have a toggle get free, from an older container (Vector II) and risers I hadn't much used, during a 2 way sit jump. Yeah, it was less freefly friendly than I expected, given that it did have a bridle cover and decent velcro on the riser covers. Some common modern toggle designs really aren't that secure if the wind catches them. During the incident, it was possible to reach up and back, grab the brake line & toggle that was flailing around in the burble, transfer to left hand, pull the hackey with the right hand, put toggle back in right hand, and hold it down below my shoulder to approximate the brake setting during opening. Worked for me on a bigger canopy, a Sabre 170, with an almost on-heading opening. I really can't recall if opening forces pulled the toggle upward during deployment, but I don't remember my hand getting yanked up to the brake guide ring or anything like that. For anyone who cares, a few more pics telling the story are at (for facebook users) https://www.facebook.com/peter.chapman/media_set?set=a.10154753737290657.1073741863.855495656&type=1 I'm sure others must have done similarly at some time, but still it seems a relatively novel technique. As for reaching back for the toggle, I guess there is some hazard if the brake line wraps around one's arm and then one does have a mal. On the other hand, keeping the toggle from flailing around can keep it from snagging GoPro's or wrapping in lines on opening or what have you. References to previous related situations: I recall a somewhat related situation, a video of an AFF instructor popping a student's 2nd toggle on deployment, after noticing one toggle was already released. http://iloveskydiving.org/view/videos/friday-freakout-skydiving-students-toggle-fires-in-freefall/ Some lost toggles can get quite dangerous. This was true for an acquaintance who was angle flying, where a poorly fitting harness helped allow a toggle to get free, which then wrapped the pilot chute hackey. Despite pulling the hackey, stuff wasn't leaving her back, leading to an eventual very low reserve opening and AAD fire. (Pics public for any facebook user:https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revesz/media_set?set=a.10204101448681463.1073741829.1382502479&type=1)

Nice to see Playmobil get some screen time, when Lego has been all the rage.

So just interpret it like an airplane's hours, since they didn't say "calendar life from time of manufacture" or similar. A parachute system isn't in service unless worn. So a 20 year life gives you 175,200 flying hours.

One part of the FAA letter does make it sound like if you get a parachute and there's now a service life listed in the manual that comes with it, it is legally binding. But I think that's the incorrect interpretation when looking at the entire FAA letter. The FAA considers the service life recommended by the manufacturer , "a non regulatory requirement for a parachute [. . . ] sold before a service life was established". However, the paragraph after that shows how a service life is created -- and that involves an SB and AD -- which is not just a change in the manual. That's the interpretation I go with, that any change in the manual is only a recommendation for equipment certificated without a life limit, unless an SB & AD are issued. On the other hand: One might interpret those two paragraphs of the FAA letter as meaning that "A manufacturer can change a service life for all newly manufactured gear in the manual, but if they want to change it for previously sold gear, they need to go the SB & AD route". The FAA letter manages to squeeze in quite a few ambiguities in very few words!

A series of cartoons on learning to skydive and overcoming fear, drawn by an artist who was a student skydiver a few years ago: Skydiving duck http://tailotherat.blogspot.ca/search/label/skydiving?updated-max=2011-09-30T09:07:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=22&by-date=false (That's a link to only the skydiving tagged posts in her blog, starting at the oldest. So read from bottom of page to top, then go to the bottom and select "Newer Posts", continuing on the next page in the same manner until all the skydiving cartoons are done. Awkward but I don't know a better way to access them.) Not sure if it will help but it does point out that fear and worries are normal things to deal with in learning to skydive.

Yes there are regional differences! Interesting. I rather thought the closed fist was reasonably appropriate as it more resembled a hackey handle, and one grabs such a handle with a somewhat closed fist, even if one then has to let it go. I have seen the closed fist occasionally confused with the 'check altimeter' signal which around here is a hand with thumb touching forefinger. At least the confusion tends to happen low in the PFF dive where a pull will soon be appropriate anyway. Pointing is such a useful, generic way of drawing attention to things that it is a shame to 'waste' it on only meaning "pull". (How then does one point something out to an AFF trained skydiver? Presumably once they're an experienced jumper they usually don't panic and pull anytime one points....even if pulling early is appropriate to quite a few in-freefall issues. Still, if someone has something dangling or misrigged on their gear, it may be better for them to realize before pulling.) But that's all getting away from the original thread, even if the issue of in-freefall signalling is relevant.

I'll just note that it is not "the" pull signal except for particular people trained in a particular method in a particular place. For all I know, anyone in the US trained by AFF should know that signal, just as you say. But in other places, e.g. where I jump, a closed fist is the PFF pull signal, while other dropzones might use a waveoff signal (as seen in one PFF manual). And someone who isn't a AFF/PFF instructor or trained by those methods, might not recognize any pull signal at all, whether to give one or receive one. So yes there is an issue with the universality of signals.

So it sounds like it still works with a pre-built line set. I wasn't sure if one wanted to drag an eye with bartack already in it, through the line itself. Many factory bartacks are admittedly fairly low bulk.

Next question is whether it is faster than doing it in a zigzag machine! (Even when doing it with a template to hold and move the line) I have used no-sew traps for things but sometimes sticking with the industry standard method of bartack (or equivalent zigzag) avoids confusing others! How would one actually use a no-sew at a cascade specifically, for a pre-made line set?? If the rest of the lines were already complete, one would be trying to pass already fingertrapped ends of lines, often with bartacks in them, through the line itself. One would either have one end (the link end) or two ends (at the canopy end) to feed through the line. That doesn't sound very practical or possible, and is rather different from just passing through a free end or single fingertrap. As for strength: 1) Jumpshack states that the no-sew is just as strong, for it breaks at the end of the fingertrap anyway (where the inserted line tapers off) -- the normal weak point in fingertrapped line 2) I also can't recall what wear issues there might be or why Jumpshack now isn't apparently using the no-sew on most canopy lines. Anything in old dz.com posts?

I didn't so much mind that the wingsuit rodeo failed, or that the 2 non-wingsuiters went for some plan-B RW, or that their wingsuiting friend made a wide pass after they had opened. What was useful as a cautionary tale was the poor CRW between the two non-wingsuiters, that resulted in a double cutaway. Both guys were maneuvering at the same time. While CRW pros might well be able to hack that, normally one person flies steady and the other attempts to pin. Here the bottom guy had a moving target above and in front of him, sashaying around unpredictably. No wonder they ended up with a wrap / entanglement.

Has anyone made a list of Average Peak Forces for some different reserves, a value required by TSO-C23d certification? For example, neither PD nor Aerodyne list it in their manuals. Jumpshack has the stats in their manual. The differences would be interesting to see even if one can't conclude too much from the numbers. Does a lower number mean a slower opening reserve, or just a better managed deployment sequence less likely to have hard openings? I was just thinking about this as I noticed most Angelfire reserves are listed as 3465 lbs max, while I just packed an Optimum 160 and I thought I saw a number like 2400 lbs. I might have remembered it wrong but that's quite a difference. (... that would fit with the 'softer opening reserve' image of the Optimum.) I also notice that not every canopy gets its own number -- for example, all the small/medium Angelfire reserves with one max certificated weight have one Average Peak Force value, while the larger sizes with another certification weight have a second Average Peak Force. Or perhaps all have the same value -- the manual shows all the same values, while a Word document once seen on this site has the two different values. I don't know which is correct.

While I'm not talking about a Classic, I did manage to make it onto the official Canadian wingsuit record this summer with my GTi. (The 26-way may not have been big by US standards but anyway.) Being a still somewhat skinny 6'1" and 155lbs, I managed to keep up. Once when I got behind a lot and a bit low on a formation, it was damn hard slow work catching up, but approaching from slightly above or staying in position worked fine. I'll probably still want a new suit for any future record attempts. You know your suit is getting old when experienced but newer wingsuit pilots ask what suit it is, you tell them it is a GTi, and they reply "huh, what?".

And then there's civil suits. A rare one happened in Canada, when one jumper, Gerry Dyck, sued a team mate, Rob Laidlaw, for $1.1M Canadian after serious permanent injuries on collision during opening. The accident happened in 1991, the case was won in 2000, but I'm not sure what ever happened after that. Did Laidlaw pay up, avoid ever going home to Canada, or appeal? http://www.dropzone.com/news/General/Skydiver_Wins_Lawsuit_Against_Teammate_386.html Whether other suits happen and what the chances are of actually winning, I have no idea.

I think that's an alternate theory worth looking at more, if one is talking about the bridle whipping about during the the deployment sequence, and not simply the more common idea of the bridle getting moved about before the jump. So that line of inquiry is more about the bridle impaling itself on the pin, rather than the pin always being the one to catch and impale the bridle.

Ditto. Heck, even BASE rigs often have similar routings (although there can be subtle differences). Clearly the pin can't pierce the bridle unless the tip of the pin contacts the bridle. So one technique has been to not lay the bridle right on top of the whole pin. But when the bridle is packed clear of the tip of the pin, it is unclear to what degree the bridle might shift around while in the airplane, or during the deployment sequence. So do all packing methods with the "bridle coming down from the top" risk the bridle getting in the way of the pin, or does it only happen to some of them? In skydivesg's pics, it looks like the closing flap order of left, right, allows the bridle to have slid over to the left closer to the pin tip, if the pin had been oriented pointing to the left. (That matches the Javelin manual. I notice that while an old Javelin manual shows the pin off to the side of the bridle, despite the pin oriented up and down, one newer manual both mentions the pin oriented up and down and also shows the bridle covering the pin completely! This might be a riskier bridle placement strategy.) The problem seems very hard to replicate on the ground in relatively slow motion, where the forces are smaller and it seems impossible to get the pin to directly stab the bridle, or drag the bridle into a position where it can grind and stab its way into the bridle. One USPA link was included in this thread already. Another good one is: http://parachutistonline.com/content/pierced-bridles-problems This in turn has links to 3 more USPA pages.

Unless one doesn't know where to find a good Spandura of the right type, or whatever they're using these days. Any ideas?

Hey Peter! I know you enjoyed jumping my Maverick F-111 7-cell. Guess you got the Solo licence even if not the full internationally recognized "A" licence. For the thread: Peter Xu did get trained at a DZ here in Ontario. He's pretty enthusiastic and had limited chances to jump here, so we did have to restrain his enthusiasm at times and hold him back a little. On the other hand, there were also times when I think some of us bent the rules a little, or cut him more slack than we might a local, because we knew he was going back to China. So for example if we knew he wanted to go try BASE jumping back home anyway, no matter what we did, is it better to hold him back or let him get more experience quickly, even if at a slightly higher risk? Being a pioneer has its added risk -- although that shouldn't stop one from trying to accumulate as much knowledge as possible from what's out there. It's an interesting situation, the transition between practicing a sport where it is well developed vs. where there's little knowledge and activity. Feel free, Peter, to comment on how things seemed from your point of view.

I know exactly what you mean, and it makes sense if talking about pilots who go, "Hey, wanna try some formation flying? I've never really done it!" But I'm not against pilots learning on the job. Few pilots hired by a DZ flying C-182's have prior formation flying experience, so the only realistic way to do formation flying is to do it flying skydivers. Under supervision in a graduated manner of course. It isn't as if the DZO is going to send pilots off on some formation flying course. At least that's all how it has been locally. I've been on 2,3, and 4 C-182 loads over the years, few of which likely would have happened if one were relying only on pilots with prior formation experience or certifications. I'll also note that the original post could apply to either a tight formation or a loose formation, which are different animals even though some basic skills are in common.