pchapman

Your reserve is still certified for 254 lbs, even if the placarded recommendation is 185. You'd be loading at something like 1.15. ( (180+30)/181 = 1.16 ) It was pretty common at one time to start loading smaller Ravens more than originally recommended, as more experienced jumpers got used to loadings of more than 1:1 on F-111. People didn't always expect picture perfect landings under their reserves anyway. Still, it really is not the best wing loading at 32 jumps, adding risk. But it is usable. Your choice. A DZ that is sharp eyed about gear might not be as accepting. Other more modern reserve designs like the PD Reserve or Optimum would flare a little nicer. But even the Optimum 176 chart suggests 195-220 lbs is 'Advanced'. Even a nice flaring canopy has to be flared correctly to land nicely.

I won't be quite as negative about it, although Dave has pointed out some pitfalls. Still, twisting to see directly behind really doesn't seem all that necessary normally. If in a crowded environment, it distracts one away from looking everywhere else, plus takes away your normal steering. About the only times I use it is when I know I'm well clear of traffic ahead and am playing around with watching a buddy flying behind, or trying to spot people far off and behind (maybe during a bad spot or cross country). But personally I think it isn't a bad little "practice canopy exercise", something new and different to try for some folks. One gets a feel for the pressures involved in creating a twist, and the effect of pushing and pulling on different risers. As you get to higher wing loadings and faster reacting designs, the canopy will get more sensitive -- so you may end up starting to dive away in a turn the first times you try it. I don't think one need be too worried about the twisting up issue - unless one really confuses right from left. With just over half twist at the most, it is easy for the harness to try to untwist itself. Much of your time when learning this maneuver is spent trying to stop oneself from instantly untwisting. I've even done it with a fairly lightweight tandem passenger early on final approach, flying backwards for shits & giggles. (Not on a regular fare-paying tandem in traffic.)

You [edit: The original poster] won't be concerned about Canada in particular, but just as an example: If one is on a CSPA dropzone anyone packing would just need a packing endorsement -- some informal instruction, 10 supervised pack jobs, tangle test, equipment identification test, that sort of thing. Technically one would probably need to be a CSPA member for the endorsement to be official, but I don't know if DZ's would bother with that if a DZ were hiring, say, 16 year old kids off the street to pack for the DZ. (One of the best packers we had at one DZ, now a good swooper 15 years later, was just a local kid who started packing at 14.) There's no "be a rigger or have direct rigger supervision" silliness like in the USA, a throwback to the 1950's military or something. In Canada, someone foreign travelling with a team would be accepted, no questions asked. There are also USPA DZ's in Canada, and I bet they just ignore the FAA rated rigger supervision stuff.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4116154#4116154

For a moment, reading the title, I thought you had done a hack to a new game system and now it fails to boot up at all... But as for skydiving, there a lots of good threads out there (somewhere!) on how students can overcome excessive nervousness. Focus on learning to do everything as best as possible, realize that everyone else was nervous too, and go for it...

I presume that some would know it as the "stall recovery position".

I've also seen non-removable RSLs on student gear. But it tended to be on older gear -- i.e., less likely to be seen on modern common brands. The idea was to avoid accidental disconnects, while at the same time one wasn't going to ask a static line student to start looking for a little tab in the rare event of a two out. I'm not advocating that method, just describing why it was done.

I have only found the error where soft links with a ring had the locking loop formed by passing it through and over the ring, rather than through the soft link and then over the ring. That was on reserve soft links by Aerodyne. That would put greater force on the ring rather than the soft link itself, although it "probably" would have held. But it makes it easier for the locking loop to loosen itself off when done the wrong way. (This took place when Aerodyne soft links were new on the market.) This error can't be made on the solid tabs of a PD Slink. Oh, and that's one reason why tacking reserve soft links down has a down side: It becomes very hard to inspect for prior rigging errors when the links can't be rotated out of the riser for inspection. I might well have missed the previous rigger's error had the links been tacked tight into the risers.

Also as an aside, it is interesting to hear your experiences in this & other posts. Plenty of jumpers have time to waste on DZ.com, but few DZO's bother with all the crap, to come on here and discuss things from a DZO perspective.

John Sherman makes an interesting point. Many modern toggle designs are fundamentally flawed (although "usually" work OK) in that they rely a lot on toggle-in-keeper friction in those initial stages of deployment, before the brake line loads up and holds the toggle tight. (And hopefully tight enough against any slider grommets sometimes coming down and hitting the toggles.) Old style toggles had velcro keeping them in place, while modern toggles often have things like two upwards pointing tabs or one upwards and one downwards pointing tab that are widely separated, that allow for any 'whip' in the riser to try to pop them out. I've got toggles by Flying High (Canada), that add a downwards pointing tab just below the top tab of the toggle, so the toggle gets locked in better against upwards and downwards movement, all in one area of the toggle. Mirage Systems has a similar concept. (e.g., http://www.parachuteshop.com/risers.jpg)

A buddy who is a DZ rigger reports the same. Back to Kevlar!

Yeah, that sounds about right. For an article I once wrote, I worked out the following approximations for the relationship between temperature, altitude, speed, and canopy size: +10 deg. C (=18 deg F) = +1200’ altitude = +1.8% airspeed = 3.6% reduction in canopy area = a need for a 3.6% increase in canopy area to fully counteract the density effect For simplicity I tend to round off the percentages even though it slightly overstates the effect of temp or altitude: +10 deg. C (=18 deg F) = +1200’ altitude = +2% airspeed = 4% reduction in canopy area = a need for a 4% increase in canopy area to fully counteract the density effect (These are linear approximations of non-linear relationships, but reasonable over typical ranges.)

Mavericks, main or reserve, are indeed 200 ft sq. On my older main, I get fast but not hard openings. It's my preferred low pull canopy. ;-)

It's not a bad idea to practice EP's in freefall. An anal DZO I know has junior or non-current jumpers do a 'survival skills' jump at the start of the season, to practice grabbing handles in freefall, and then under canopy right after deployment (when handles have shifted). I've been around when a couple jumpers had main canopy deployment issues and had to go to their emergency handles in freefall. One novice (50 j.?) and one moderately experienced jumper (500 j.?) went forward over onto their backs from dearching and/or bringing their arms in abruptly. That didn't help either jumper's composure or altitude awareness, nor is it an ideal body position for firing off your reserve. So even the simple act of staying belly-stable while reaching in for chest handles isn't something that can be assumed to happen automatically.

Agreed. We all have differing opinions but I figure that if everyone was grounded -- or stopped from instructing -- due to a real screwup at some time, there would be far fewer of us jumping. I've known a couple current, long time AFF instructors to have had a two-out after chasing a student in separate incidents. Stupid, stupid, stupid.... but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be jumpers or instructors. The sport would not have been bettered by that.

I dunno, I guess it can be done. PC's are huge, even if in a bag not a sleeve, so it isn't going to go into any standard container. But you could sew up some simple container that fits, and then hook up the canopy to either extra 3 rings on one's harness or a 2nd harness underneath. Getting the large container to clear one's regular handles might be an issue, so it might need to hang fairly low, to be more of a 'belly & lap' container than a 'belly & chest' container.

Is it perhaps positioned or shifting so that it presses too close to the eye and putting pressure on the eyeball? That's just a long shot. Some people like Sorz but they didn't work for me -- instead of seating on the bony parts of the skull around the eye socket, the goggles were too narrow and seemed to dig into my eye socket uncomfortably.

Interesting! This shows science does work as a process. It can't always give the right answer (and we are probably not there yet on this issue), but if done right, allows for opinions to change based on further evidence and analysis. And it still isn't good for the extreme deniers who can't believe there's any chance of anything happening due to all the human activity, and wouldn't want any research into the possibility of effects. (And RonD1120, I figure you have some street cred for doing substance abuse work -- a job helping people -- so you're not a stereotyped right winger who seemingly hates everyone unlike his own kind. )

While "the middle" is usually the safest, there was an interesting video that showed up here a couple years ago from Empuria I think: A small power line was strung diagonally across a field, with poles largely hidden in the treeline at the edges. That was a tough one to plan for or spot...

With the caution that one had better agree with the seller about the tensile test and what number to test to! If you rip the seller's canopy, you've probably just bought a ripped canopy for full price. And it'll need some major repair work, even though it might have been good for hundreds of jumps more. The tear strength on the top aft center cell might be way down from spec, but still quite usable for a long time without a center cell replacement. I've seen top aft center cells tested to just 20 lbs as a compromise value. Or skip the tensile test and use the opinion of an experienced jumper / rigger as to the value and expected future longevity of the canopy.

Ok, so the guy perhaps initially didn't get to shoot people because his gun jammed in the first building he went in, a restaurant. Not because an armed citizen (in a gun friendly state) took action or because of the off-duty sheriff’s deputy working security -- who was in the second building, the theatre. (Really, a security guard with a gun, in a movie theatre? Well, I guess it is the USA so anything is possible.) Later in the second building the gunman's gun didn't jam, and he shot someone, after which the off-duty sheriff’s deputy got to him and she shot him. Good work. (All this is based on just the one posted initial news report.) I'll leave others to argue the moral of the story.

As this thread was revived, I'll note that one other big thread I recall on skydiving, depression, and meds was http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3837829, that dealt with the awkward issue of tandem instructors with FAA medicals. If they don't get help, they can jump. If they do get help for their condition, they get grounded...

I modified a bag for myself with tuck tabs in '05 and love it, but more recently was thinking of using magnets if others wanted the semi-stowless bags -- because that's the trendy thing. Your preference for tuck tabs inspires me to think more about sticking with that design in the future.

Damn, right to the source, that's handy! So it sounds like the Para-Commander color scheme Telstar was unrelated to your rig. And that the canopy on the market with the name stamped on it, was actually likely stamped by the factory, which seems unusual (in my limited experience). And for a change it seems that the "tel" is unrelated to any particular French-American fellow, unlike in say "telsan". So Telstar got picked up as a name in various unrelated fields because a communications satellite was a big thing in 1962. ..

Haha, some of us fought that question out in another thread recently. While the above advice is good and safe, my opinion was NOT to land way out in the middle of some damn field, that is muddy or filled with crops or even just easy pasture but a long walk. Land as close to the EDGE as you think advisable given your experience. Yes, edges of fields are filled with roads/ditches/fences/wires/buildings etc. Stay a safe distance away from them, especially to make up for any accuracy errors when landing away from the DZ with poor wind references. (Heck, if I did twist an ankle I'd rather not have to walk 1500' to the next road to be found.) But no need to land all the way out nowhere. And that makes the hike back, easier.