pchapman

But only for a year after expiry and only when buying a new unit.... something jumpers often forget when they cling to old Cypres'. (Cutters used to be the same as the rest of the Cypres but at some point they upped the life from 12.25 years or 12.5 years, to 14.5 years. So they go a little longer.)

That provides a big constraint on the shape of the circuit, eliminating taking the downwind further than normal. Previous suggestions here were decent in general, but this changes the situation for you in particular. The constraints really only leave the downwind part of the circuit flexible in terms of location and shape, unless you extend the final approach and soar out of the DZ entirely. Therefore you would need to modify the downwind so that you do get to "B" to start the Base at an appropriate height. That suggests getting onto downwind, finding that one is floating, turning 90 deg. away from the circuit (to the North East on your diagram), and then slowly turning back to rejoin the circuit on an extended Base, to get to B at the desired altitude. As others have said, one of course has to check what the local conventions are. My suggestion does mess with the regular circuit but what can one do. Doing a second circuit actually conforms nicely to the shape of the proper circuit, although done lower. The problem is that it is too easy to get into danger with too low turns, and cranking turns too tight when trying to get that extra 360 degrees of turn in, between the initial way too high Final approach, and the second Final approach.

Most of the video was a bit confusing, as to what he was getting at. We often think of hard decks as something important if we're dicking around with spinning line twists. Yet he goes on about setting up for a circuit, which isn't exactly on your mind when having a mal. Finally I realized what he's talking about: At about 3 minutes in, he says, "Once I've entered my pattern, I will no longer cut away." What he's talking about is cutting away from canopy collisions. Aha! While one may have a specific altitude as one's hard deck in those situations, he's suggesting that to keep it simple especially during the stress of an emergency, for many of us it may make sense to do it his way: If you are in the pattern and have a collision, you can go for more nylon, but don't chop. If you're above the pattern, well he doesn't really discuss that. Now you have to start thinking about time and altitude again. But at least, if you move fast, this is territory where you can chop (assuming you have a way of getting the reserve out, like an RSL or a left hand on the reserve handle). It's a tough job to come up with really clear, succinct video instruction...

The Racer version uses a dozens of rubber bands to close the sack, but otherwise is similar.

Not a normal thing to do in the US as far as I know. Charity events exist, but aren't common. (The whole UK charity jumping scene seems a bit weird to us over on this side of the atlantic.)

Nice catch! One has to look for that double bump that shows that the slink went through the loop of the other end, rather than just being looped around the tab or ring. Top: bad Bottom: good [inline slink.jpg]

... which is why the link is dead ... which is why he's asking for a new link....

Yes the Parafoil is an accuracy canopy, and people often didn't want to take them terminal. There have however been variations in design and construction over the years. Most have just a normal slider and the latest probably just have a big slider. So that huge slider pocket is a bit of an exception.

I found a photo of a really large slider pocket, although it doesn't show it well. The large white cape thing is the slider pocket on my Parafoil 282. (It's a model from maybe 15 years back. I didn't put the pocket on and don't know if the factory did or not.) The slider addition basically has a pocket formed on the last 6", with a total length of a couple feet. In packing, it can be used to wrap the whole canopy roll, and on inflation the large amount of material may work to delay getting air into the cells, in addition to the pocket effect on the slider. Openings can still be snappy and not symmetrical at times, but does make the Foil OK to take to terminal. [inline large_slider_pocket_-_on_Parafoil_in_flight.jpg]

I didn't check it out completely, but it is a video that seems to be intended to be humorous. I just like descriptions of things before clicking through to a video. Like the old idea that straightjacketing students might make them safer, in this case, the suggestion by the authors of the video is to enclose the student (shown only on the ground) in a large sack, with only their head sticking out. This would be the Y-Mod Advanced, much easier for the student to don than some complicated harness with all sorts of straps.

Humor video, FWIW.

To clear up Container vs. Canopy manufacturer rules: Riggerpaul advises me that AC105 has stated "However, the container manufacturer’s instructions take precedence when there is a conflict between the two." This matches what Jerry Baumchen wrote. Edit: TWARDO -- what was that old reserve that mal'ed on you with a non-factory style pack job?

Losing weight will help (as does better physical fitness), although good landing technique is more important for most people. Others may have better advice as I have only occasionally jumped rounds, and never in 'the old days' when it was common in North America. But here goes: For landing round canopies, you do want to be rolling in a continuous motion. You don't want to take the impact just on the legs and then fall over. But you do still want to take much of the force on the legs as you start to fall and roll. A good landing is easiest if there is a slow amount of sideways motion. Too little and you tend to crumple vertically (slamming knees to chest or butt on ground); too much and you don't take enough force on your legs as you fall to the side and body slam the ground. You can compensate for poor sideways motion by angling your legs. E.g., if coming straight down, put the legs a little to the side so you'll tend to tilt and roll to the side. Sideways motion (or sideways with a little forward) is easier to deal with than forwards or backwards. At first it can be hard to anticipate when exactly one will hit the ground, as humans are used to jumping from things and accelerating towards the ground, but not having a constant fall rate under a parachute. It takes time to get a feel for how much leg tension is too much or too little, so you neither take too much force or too little in the legs. Instructors should be able to help refine your Parachute Landing Fall. I'm assuming the technique is pretty much the same in the Ukraine as in English speaking countries.

Just some opinions dashed off: For opening reliability I don't think there would be that much difference, despite the untrue prejudice against flat packs that they are "90 degrees off heading". What does differ is whether the folds of fabric cross the center line or not when flaked to the outside. Still, propacks seem a little neater in their concept, in that they are symmetrical along the fore-aft axis, as canopies themselves are, and that may be better. As for practical reserve packing: Propacks fit much more nicely into reserve freebags that have a closing loop going through them. Molaring a canopy does involve a bunch of scrunching of fabric and shaping, but a lot less than needs to be done for a flat pack. (Where one has to get lots of cells out of the way of the loop, not just the center cell.) As for manufacturers' rules: Pretty much everything is propacked these days. (I'm sure some exceptions can be thought of...) Sometimes a manufacturer changes their mind. UPT tandem reserves were officially packed using a modified flat pack for many years, but then changed to a propack. the flat pack was a bit of a pain to molar! There was a transition time when the manual still told me as a rigger that I must follow their special flatpack... but a brand new Sigma from the factory would arrive with a propacked reserve. PD reserves used to have flat pack instructions for many years, even when everyone was starting to propack them like other reserves. Eventually they came out with a propack addendum, and finally the propack became the standard. So manufacturer's instructions do vary over time. You might get some out of date 1980s rig that only shows flat packing in the manual because that's what was available. Before the concept of molaring a reserve (awkward with a flat pack anyway), there were some weird contortions needed in the pack jobs to get the reserve canopy around one or two closing loops. I bet just about any rigger would propack the reserve these days. Here you also get into the issue of reserve manual vs. container manual, and the reserve manual has precedence. But manuals may differ on how much of an overlap they show between pack jobs in the canopy vs. container manual. (I haven't looked into manuals lately for the purpose of checking this though.) The Flight Concepts / Glide Path manuals show a propack version that looks more like what you'd do when rushing to pack your main to get on the plane at a boogie. I bet most riggers ignore the instructions and pack the reserves the way they propack all other standard reserves. So while riggers are supposed to follow the manual, in reality adjustments are made for what is considered acceptable in the community.

Implications of these bulletins as I see it: So SB-10 addresses the old issue of jumpers not understanding that the shut down of the Vigil has long been different from that of the Cypres, that driving away from the DZ with it on can leave it on permanently and ready to fire at an unanticipated altitude. From v 2.50 onwards the unit always switches off after 14 hours. Vigil had also been criticized in these forums for having modified the behaviour of those newer Vigils (v2.50), without notifying users or changing the manual. You can't tell someone to RTFM if the manual has an inaccurate description of the product's behaviour. The bulletin addresses that problem. As for SB-9, that takes away one advantage of the Vigil over the Cypres. If a Cypres 2 gets wet, the filter has to be changed. If a Vigil II got wet, it was OK. (Although one had to dry the filter and were supposed to do a pressure reading with the Vigil to confirm that it matched an accurate local air pressure, to ensure the filter was indeed clear.) So the Vigil II is now considered USUALLY waterproof, but having to send it back to the company (USA or Europe) if wet, in effect means that it is NOT WATERPROOF for the purpose of continuing to jump. This is a discouragement to anyone pond swooping with a Vigil. I'm not sure how wet AAD's do get within a rig from a brief dip in the pond, but I could see that some people might just get a rigger to open up the Vigil and have a look at it & air dry it, rather than properly following the bulletin...

A couple slider pockets. (Normally they are fully open except for the pouches being sewn down at the center line, but these have been sewn partially shut to adjust and reduce their effect. I've even seen one that was built "so open" that it would invert and be nearly totally useless. The owner was going to sell the canopy, but a minute of sewing closed it up a little and now he likes the canopy.) Pro: Easy to add on to existing slider Con: Still takes quite a bit of time to build. Pocket sliders may not be quite as reliable in catching air the same way consistently, compared to a domed slider. [inline pocket1.jpg] [inline pocket2.jpg]

You're frustrated with Airtec and definitely looking for replies...

Maybe I'm belaboring the point (actually I am), but if one has that one huge sign... [edit to summarize:] ... warning of one real but rare danger, then one should have similar huge signs to warn of all sorts of other dangers, of greater, lesser, or equal concern. E.g., An airplane should also have a giant red sign to warn to check one's pilot chute, one to check ones handles, one for wingsuiters about tailplanes, one for not pulling low, etc. Not forgetting other people involved, I think the engine compartment of a skydiving aircraft should have a giant red sign warning the mechanic not to do compression checks wrong, the panel a giant red sign warning the pilot to put the gear down for landing, and one not to stall the plane, while the wings would have a giant red sign warning the pilot not to dipstick the fuel tanks wrong, plus a giant red sign in the DZO's office to select & train pilots carefully, a giant red sign at the exit of the DZ to remind people to drive carefully to avoid a crash, a giant red sign warning people of the danger of walking into giant red signs, and so on....

I figure that any tandem instructor who is so jaded, lazy, tired, and sloppy that he's going to forget to hook up snaps, is going to ignore the big red sign after a while anyway. Maybe, maybe not. I still find the sign freaking insulting, and ridiculously simple minded, focused only on one exceeding rare thing. But everyone can have their own opinion! I wouldn't mind as much if there were a smaller sign asking whether you have checked your gear and will be ready to jump when the door is open -- that could be quite reasonable. There are plenty of other ways to screw up before exiting. I think that sign would have gotten covered in stickers in protest. Doesn't matter now. The sign was in the plane only for a week. Actually, it's still in the plane, but they crashed the plane, so the entire plane has been carted off. That wasn't quite the way I wanted to get rid of the damn sign ...

We probably are still somewhat apart on this whole issue. But my point was just that the "follow the pilot" rule need not be 100% absolute and that there is room to maneuver, as you demonstrated. Meanwhile maybe you're thinking that my idea that you don't necessarily have to follow the pilot is meant to be 100% absolute too, that I'm just encouraging a free for all, do anything you want and screw everyone else. Which isn't true either. It is true that there's a lot of potential for abuse there, if the principle is not used very carefully and wisely. So there's always more complexity than can be encapsulated in a short rule like "follow the pilot!" or "do what you think is right!".

Aha! So you have disregarded the pilot's instructions instead of slavishly following every command to the letter. I thought we had been arguing about whether the pilot is the infallible commander who must be followed in all circumstances: If he says nothing, you stay put, if he says jump, you jump NOW. You disregarded his explicit command .... but you communicated with him, and improved the safety of the flight overall. You thought you knew better than him, since he was understandably focused on the engine out issue and keeping the plane aloft, while you had time to evaluate additional factors. As you point out, sometimes skydivers would make terrible decisions if they didn't listen to the pilot during an incident. But sometimes a skydiver will make a good decision, as you yourself showed. Thank you!

An issue that has been on my mind too. Technically I can see the issue with having stickers, since aircraft interiors are supposed to use only fire resistant, approved materials, as approved for the particular plane. So for example interior fibreglass panels on a Caravan might be properly taped together with a tape ('speed tape') that is approved to a certain FAR, rather than plain duct taped. Yet one also sees C-182's where all the sharp edges are just duct taped. I suppose one might argue that all that and stickers are 'temporary installations', not bolted to the plane, and thus exempt, in the same way that a GPS velcroed to the panel doesn't need approval while one screwed into the panel does. I know in the last 10 years or so Transport Canada has become more picky about required labels for aircraft, even if "just for skydiving". They are still commercial aircraft so one needs safety labels for things like the Exit, and how to operate door latches. (Which can actually be a little tricky on 182's etc.) So one wouldn't want to cover or make it hard to see the real safety stickers. But beyond all that, I thought many but not necessarily all DZ's tolerate a lot of stickers in their airplanes.

If you don't feel slightly insulted or put down by others' posts here on DZ, get used to it. It happens to all of us. It's all part of the discussion, and the way things come across in text on the internet. As for hand slaps and the like, I remember at one DZ for a couple years the special hand shakes always changing and becoming more complex. When the hand shake is harder to memorize than your 4-way formations, it's going way too far...

I saw this sign on facebook, apparently recently installed in the back of a Caravan jump plane. [inline RU-Connected-crop.jpg] Is that a standard sign used anywhere else or is it more likely custom? I'm curious what others think. While it is clearly very important for tandem students to be hooked up to their instructor, I see the sign as demonstrating the DZ's lack of trust in their instructors, a bit of a put down. Looks like it would help scare tandem students, which is not what they need on the ride up & before exit. (A bit confusing to AFF students too.) And students aren't (in many areas) supposed to be hooked up to the instructor during most of the plane ride. Any instructor who gets so jaded, lazy, and tired that they could forget a hookup point, will probably after a month or two at the DZ take no notice of the big red sign either.

Sorry, but that did actually change to a B CoP some years back. (4 or 5??) I'm staying out of the debate at the moment, but it does mean one can get someone in Canada with 50 jumps legally jumping a camera, good or bad. Individual dropzones may set standards above that minimum.