pchapman

Which FAR regulates operation and not just rigging? For example, 105.46 has some rules on maintaining tandem gear, using an approved harness, having received an approved rating to be a TI, and using an AAD. But that rule doesn't mention operations. (Interestingly, that FAR doesn't say anything about having to MAINTAIN any manufacturer rating - just get the initial rating. So that takes away any issue of the manufacturer deciding to pull a rating on a whim, or having to send anyone $25 a year. USPA might however have its own rules.) But I don't know the FAR's well enough to know what other sections might say on all this. One might as well say that for non-commercial operations, the example shouldn't be a 737 but playing with a dirt bike off road.

It's great that you're willing to share some info that others don't know. But full stowless bags are pretty rare and little understood in some areas. I googled Downward Trend and found them online. Aussies. On their site, I searched for Axe, but nothing matched my search criteria. It's obviously a very well kept secret.

Locally I've seen the problem being that if a bunch of people want to skydive together, but the skill level isn't there to do RW as a single large group, then by default the answer is, "Let's do a tracking dive!" That's not looking like a good strategy. Despite wanting to get something like a sunset bigway with everyone included, in the end it would be better to split into smaller groups, whatever the discipline.

Obviously there's more to the story than I know. But if a DZ or an investigator estimates gear at 15kg per jumper, then that will adequately cover a heavy tandem rig - when shared between 2 people on the plane. If the 15kg was supposed to be the tandem rig itself, that's another matter.

Since she did 3 tandems, likely they would have been working tandems with things to learn, so it would be one of the tandem to AFF systems, where usually the first AFF is already just 1:1. (I don't know the details of such programs in the US though.) If the instructor wasn't perfect, well, it's only on the internet that we require perfection. He did let go with one hand for the practice pull. She pulled away from him so fast that he couldn't stick that right hand in front of her face to call for legs out. He probably figured that with all the tension on his grip and her rapid backslide it was easier just to let her go... which yeah I guess would be a bad call instead of fighting the problem. He did let himself get flung off her a ways -- it seemed like he hadn't been giving strong forward input to stay close. He had to fight by getting really flat to get back up when she floated (which spinning students often do in relation to their normal speed), and before he could get close, she tumbled a little and dropped, and then pulled. So he was trying to get back to her.

You got into a spin. Plenty of students have done that. Scary for you, but we've seen it all before. You did the right thing when you weren't able to to stop it; you deployed. Sounds like you did indeed fight the line twists too long, to too low an altitude. But you've learned something about altitude awareness. (Normally line twists on a student canopy aren't a real mal, so it would be highly unusual if one couldn't recover from them, but anything can happen.) You dealt OK with an off field landing on your first solo jump. Good work. Hell yeah, that was an adventure! You can put a positive spin on it all as long as you remember the lessons. You then got a ton of tunnel time, which should massively improve your body position and freefall control skills. Go and jump. Maybe you'll be really nervous the first few seconds out the door. Tough. Jumping out of a plane is supposed to be scary, and part of learning to skydive is overcoming your fears, being able to act despite them. Others have gone through the same. (These days it seems there's a "I'm scared" thread popping up every week from a new student looking for advice and reassurance!) A few seconds after exit, then you'll just be floating on air like in the wind tunnel. Easy. But don't forget to check your alti regularly

I don't know what the answer is, but one local rigger, who is also an Aerodyne dealer, went with Ballistic on his latest rig. He does a lot of jumps per year and figured he'd go with what lasted the longest, whether or not it was a few percent less pretty. Some of the DZ's student rigs are also in Ballistic and are holding up well. Still, the rigs are only a couple years old and I haven't checked with the rigger lately to see what his opinion is. The ballistic cordura is pretty stiff so as Aerodyne advises, one wouldn't want to try to overstuff the rig. I do criticize some aspects of Aerodyne's rigs & canopies, but I won't write off the Ballistic cordura idea. It may actually be a pretty useful feature. (On one of their ordering forms I saw ballistic cordura as an option for the backpad. That sounds a little rough on your back!)

So this is one good example of a student, who is presumably used to full altitude jumps, messing up the low hop and pop jump that is required in many places. The debate has long been about how to challenge a student outside of their comfort zone, to do something that is well within safe practice when done right... but can become dangerous when a student gets nervous. CG07: Nice job fighting the problem. And realizing why it all happened in the first place. I try reminding students doing a low hop and pop to calculate how much time they have. e.g., 3500' to 2500' is over 9 seconds.

In case it is hard to recognize the blob on the helmet, that apppears to be a top mounted student radio.

What did the OP do, like a 45 degree front riser? Maybe a little more? And the other guy out of camera, he maybe sashayed a little? Technically an "accelerated" landing for the OP but hardly high performance. More like barely-better-than-a-mind-boring-straight-in-like-some-student. Of course in this case, a more boring outcome would have been welcome.

I'll probably hold one again at Skydive Toronto, but not until next spring. I'm not one of the big names in the field but have done courses at a few local DZ's. As you may know, the format I've been doing is to teach in class, focusing on understanding the theory and practical techniques. Then I provide numerous exercises to practice later on one's own. Although not having the jumps integrated into the course has its disadvantages too, this way the course is less expensive and isn't weather dependent. If you don't have it already, there's a compilation of canopy control related documents available for download at my small site https://sites.google.com/site/canopyflight/ With video cameras all over these days, jumpers could be capturing each others' landings a lot more for learning purposes, but in practice one doesn't see it happen a lot!

I guess because if you can land at a convenient spot and expect to do so safely, you do. That one tiny little landing area section seems to have gravel on it rather than what I'm guessing is hard packed desert dirt, and so in effect becomes the ideal landing target. On the video, near the start one can see another jumper flying in along the same path the OP lands in, along the long axis of that gravel landing area. One can see a third jumper doing the same at 20 sec in. That guy has a blue canopy with lighter stripes --- probably the guy who at the end flies in on an angle causing the problem. So initially it looks like he's going to land in the proper direction, and is even in sight of the OP. But I'm thinking the guy then found himself a bit high or something and swung wide before flying back in to landing at an angle to the axis of the gravel area. So there was a chance for the OP to see the problem guy, who was actually out in front of the OP at one point. In setting up his own landing, the OP either didn't notice or failed to keep track of where the problem guy was, perhaps not expecting him to swerve off to the side of the normal landing run before angling back in. This doesn't excuse the other guy's landing approach. So there was actually an opportunity to notice the potential problem early, but in real life we don't always see all the details that are evident in a later detailed video review.

Random stuff does certainly look non-random, with clusters naturally occurring. A good example is what is seen in this link, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/04/21/pareidolia-poser/#.Ui4xMn_3Prg -- the rectangle with the random dots looks less random (to the uninitiated) than the rectangle with dots spaced more evenly.

You do keep spinning. Yes, despite an object departing at a tangent to the circle in which it was being spun. We've been over that in big threads with plenty of argument. If your body is rotating around its own axis, as it is in a classic skydiving spiral, it continues to do so, slowed by drag and any jumper input. There are occasional mals that spin you more around your long axis; then you also continue to spin around your long axis. The hammer sports event is a poor example as it the hammer (a sphere) is in effect a point mass and one can't watch it rotate as it is let go, plus it has the trailing handle to confuse matters by affecting the rotation. So yes it goes straight into the stadium, but it rotates, with the handle flailing wildly. What effect the continued spinning has on a jumper after the cutaway, is another matter entirely. Usually it has little practical effect on an RSL deployed reserve, and even if there are line twists, they are most likely cleared quickly and safely. Whatever the spinning going on, one can still have the airflow going some odd angle across one's body, so that an RSL deployment will punch the pilot chute out into airflow that is for example going against one's back and across a shoulder past an arm. An RSL deployed reserve in no way guarantees a stable deployment. Nevertheless, RSL deployments do work reliably. But you can't use the "no spinning" argument to advocate RSLs, because the argument doesn't hold. If you want a stable reserve deployment, you need to cutaway, get stable(ish), and deploy your reserve. Works fine if you have altitude, and not so well if you don't, or can't find the reserve handle, but that's the choice you make.

Although you can collect all the data you want, nobody decides whether they want to jump by punching in numbers on a computer and doing a calculation based on their canopy, air density, how much you ate for breakfast, etc. You decide to jump based more on empirical factors. What are other jumpers doing? Are they reporting turbulence or gusts? Is the windsock showing gusts? Are the uppers a lot stronger than usual? And finally, you'll look at wind meter or forecast or windsock (or whatever best info you have) and compare that to conditions you jumped in before, and decide whether you are comfortable in those conditions. So you don't take "18 mph" on a wind meter and plug that into a computer. You ask yourself if the last time you jumped when "18" was showing, you were comfortable or not. There's nothing wrong with going backwards under canopy up at altitude. It does make navigation harder but in itself that isn't a problem. Going backwards on final approach is a little uncomfortable, but often with a bit of such backwards movement, you'll still end up coming down no worse than vertically just at touchdown, where the winds have continued to decrease close to the surface. Actually going backwards on touchdown gets a little rough though, making it tough for anyone other than a PLF expert from round canopy days. Turbulence also has to be considered, as that can completely change whether a given wind speed in a given location on a given day is comfortable or safe or not. Looks like you are already getting a feel for what is comfortable or not with the canopy you fly. A tricky part is then to decide whether to keep that limit or learn to go to higher limits. Other jumpers watching your flight would be able to help there. On the one hand you don't want to get into situations that are too scary, on the other hand you can learn to expand the range of situations you are comfortable with. I've jumped big accuracy canopies at .65 loading in high winds where I was going backwards until the last 10 feet of descent, or even very slightly backwards to touchdown. No big deal if you fly right. But if I were jumping a faster, smaller parachute, I probably would not want to be in wind fast enough to give me no forward speed on final approach. If I were under a canopy with a 35 mph forward speed, at a lot of DZ's, if the wind were that strong, there would also be nasty turbulence in which I absolutely wouldn't want to jump. Although turbulence (& gusts) and wind speed are somewhat correlated, in the end, it tends to be turbulence (& gusts) more than average wind speed that determine whether conditions are jumpable.

I'm in the camp of "have one, have tried it, it can be handy for an extra tight rig, am not against others using it if it works for them, but I usually don't use it". If I'm forcing the closing loop up (or equivalently, the top flap down), then it is better that I'm doing it with my leverage device for which I have a feel for what too much tension is, than just forcing the pin in with an extra tool. If I can't get an extra couple mm of loop showing, I need to work the rig or something and not just force the pin in. The older, stubbier, wide figure-9 closing pins for Skyooks can be a pain as they won't go in well even when one has enough loop showing past the grommet. So the big hollow end temp pin could be more useful in such cases.

It all depends on the type of jump. The first alarm is breakoff: 4500 in my most used set of alarms. (A good common modern breakoff altitude.) 3500 in another set of alarms for old school RW or whatever doesn't need to be way up high. Second alarm to say I'll probably want to pull soon: 3000 to go with the 4500 breakoff 2500 to go with the 3500 breakoff Third alarm, the siren: 1500 (Last ditch reminder if one lost track of time.) For PFF, tandems, & tandem video, I use a group of alarms set to 6000, 5000, 3000. That has to be a compromise to suit different applications. One always has the choice to change the numbers.

In any case, we all agree that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is smart. ...

Looks like the manufacturer did give it to you in writing that the customer's weight was OK, yet you still chose not only not to pack it, but also disallow a legal rig from your DZ. Your right but it seems a little unfair. The manual does state that the Techno is qualified under TSO C23d (among other certifications), which in turn requires certification to at least 220 lbs. The manual also shows tested weights of 300 lbs for most of the range. (Lower for the 98 and higher for the problematic 240.). Dividing by the TSO's 1.2 test factor suggests a 250 lbs certification weight -- although it isn't explicitly shown. The "low" weights listed are only shown as "recommended" in the manual. Also, at least in the manual I have*, it shows the low recommended maximum weight of 145 lbs only for the 98 and 115, with higher weights for larger ones. *[Edit: Manual edition #5, Nov 2000.] As a comparison, the old Precision Raven manual shows wing loading above 1.02 as "not approved", and even that is just a recommendation and not the FAA limit. Plenty of people flew them ok at wing loadings higher than that conservative value, even if a bunch of others did stall in when highly loading them. I'll certainly agree that the Techno manual is very poor in showing what the certification limits are, requiring knowledge of the TSO's. I still can't be 100% sure now. And the email you received confuses the matter more than clarifies it. A little digging does however show that the low weights some people notice are far below certification weights.

Anyone notice hard openings on Solos? Sizes are the DZ I'm at are 270's and 250's. They're OK on static line but in freefall use for PFF (AFF), openings can be hard. Some of the time the bad openings are likely due to bad student body position, but not all the time. Our DZ rigger was to look into it but I never heard anything more. The Solo sliders are not particularly large looking. In contrast, the Aerodyne Pilots that are used for rental / downsizing gear, those have a good reputation at the DZ. (And I wish Aerodyne wouldn't use that soft, untreated Spectra on so many of their canopies. It sure fuzzes up quick, especially on brake lines.)

Chris likes to demonstrate his suits by grabbing one part of the suit and having the potential customer grab another part, and have the guy pull as hard as he likes to try to pull the suit apart. (You wouldn't do that across a zipper I suppose, but across any major sewn line.) I was told he was doing demos like that at a recent large US boogie. This is just second hand from a friend, but apparently a couple jumpers saw his demo, and then continued on to the booth of a major jumpsuit manufacturer. The booth wasn't staffed right at that moment, but the guys did the "try to rip it apart" test anyway ... and ripped one of the other company's suits open. Strength isn't exactly the only criterion for a jump suit. Indeed, a couple suits I'm jumping from other companies are versions that are nice and light weight, but as a result probably wouldn't stand the pull test. I'm sure any jumpsuit can be ripped apart given the right force and angles, but still, it is an amusing little anecdote. Correct me if any part of the tale I was told was incorrect! I get the impression that with FreeFall Skydiving suits, like with other smaller companies, it is best to talk to them to get the details decided on -- Their order forms are still pretty simple so there aren't always check boxes for every one of the latest options for their evolving designs.

It is good that it isn't all about landing into the wind these days. On the other hand, it is hard to create priority lists that provide a proper flowchart or basis for making decisions, given the complex interplay of factors. A jumper has to get a feel for the interplay of factors, because it'll take too long to parse the logic of the list otherwise. Just using one of the priority lists (without trying to say it is better or worse than others): For example, this makes it sound like I'd rather fly into a building with wings level, than be in a small flared turn to avoid it. Yet it is true that I'd rather flare nicely into a tree canopy, rather than hook in to avoid the tree. One can't forget that even if landing upwind is a low priority when there's an emergency situation to avoid (eg, bad obstacles), and a low priority compared to creating your own emergency (eg, landing in a steep turn or no flare), it is still something of a priority in normal landings. After all most places still have jumpers landing upwind, and people seem to want to avoid canopy collisions too. Even if I were a newbie, I don't think I'd be popular if I flew to a crosswind landing through an Otter load full of people landing upwind -- and then said "But the SIM doesn't even list landing into wind as a priority in the basic Cat. A information". (Well, it doesn't in the list DocPop found for us from Cat. A. However, half a page earlier the SIM does say "Landing into (against) the wind is desirable, but not absolutely necessary", so landing upwind isn't totally ignored.) So I'll use the lists as starting points for discussion but not as an absolute hierarchy of priorities.

To clarify: You keep making it sound like you found a bent L-bar. That's why you are being questioned. Do you instead mean that you found a bent Maillon rapide link, which had the barrel unscrewed? That's what I thought you meant.

Like, car accident? Heart attack? Or "XXX went in in the Dolomites over the weekend. " from basejumper.com? A well known jumper.

I guess there's no expected date on completing that rewrite for the FAA, Mel? Part of the problem I guess was that it was largely the work of one person, which is sometimes needed to get something done, but then it reflects the biases and opinions of that one person. Was it more those kind of errors you were talking about, rather than typos and poor instructions? I know you've posted on the subject before but I don't recall exactly. For example, if it were something about line repair, a specialty of yours, would you be thinking more like a) "that's plain bad advice!" or b) "well, that's acceptable but ignores the latest knowledge even as of 2005" or c) "well, that's acceptable but applies to Spectra while totally ignoring HMA, which did exist in 2005". Just trying to get a feel for the types of problems you saw.