pchapman

To lessen the time to individually analyze the video, can you explain what was happening to the reserve in the video? Some sort of bucking. So was it stalling? I know the VR 360 reserves do open on the edge of stall. It was unusual though that things weren't symmetrical, that the tandem pair were swinging left and right, almost to the point of line twist. Was that self induced on the toggles, or was that from going in and out of stalls? I don't know, but that seems unusual, as normally I thought such stalls on opening are pretty symmetrical with no twisting. I suppose the stalling cycle was encouraged by the manner of cutaway: A very slow speed situation from a fully open canopy, with airflow from behind due to flying backwards with line twists. (We don't fine tune our reserve brake settings for the type of jump expected, unlike say the DBS in BASE...) All that probably helped get the reserve into the stall-unstall cycle, without it having a good chance to get some forward flying speed. If the canopy opens without quite stalling, then it can be fine, but if it rocks at all, it can get into a self-sustaining cycle of stalls. (I personally barely experienced rocking on my one Sigma chop, but I once had a Parafoil that exhibited that type of behaviour on opening.) A friend on a Sigma recently had a cutaway from a mal, and on the reserve got the stalling cycle, AND some line twists. Now that combination was less than fun! - but he managed to untwist.

Someone solidly built... AND really flexible. That's good for surprising instructors! Which shows others how easy it is to criticize on the internet, how hard it is to be perfect as an instructor on every single jump. Newbie instructors. They should be on DZ.com more and learn how to really fly. Sounds like your next AFF jumps should go a lot smoother. Have fun.

No, it is done just mathematically: Below 0 is negative g. So -0.01g is negative g. Between 0 and 1 one might say one is in a low g environment, but that's just a general term.

From skimming that poster's uploads, it looks like he has collected and reposted a bunch of skydiving incident videos, including some well known ones, with little description. Who knows when & where the original incidents took place.

RSS does have a point. If I'm skiing, I can use skill to do exciting stuff, to move fast and keep control and maneuver near objects, for quite a few minutes at a time, dozens of times a day. In skydiving, I get to swoop only for a few seconds, a smaller number of times per day. (And plenty of drop zones are putting a stop to much swooping.) There is some personal preference involved, as skiing (something I used to do only a few times a year) got repetitive and boring for me, yet it isn't like that for many others.

A nice little quote, something to think about as an instructor.

When discussing personal responsibility, that's fine with me. But she's the one with the big investment to lose, with a DZ next to a guarded WMD site. So she needs to be more active than most DZO's in stopping skydivers from being their (occasional) dumbass selves. You gave an interesting example of spotting there. I would hope that any aircraft at a DZ like that would have a GPS (plus a pilot competent at spotting).

Sounds a bit like a troll but maybe a serious question from someone whose first language isn't english. You can take hundreds of jumps to get decent at each of the following: small belly formations, biggerways, sitflying, head down, freestyle, VRW, wingsuiting, CRW, tracking, atmo, coaching, instructing. There, that takes care of your first couple thousand jumps at least. The point isn't just to fall, but to explore all the different ways you can fall, and then combine that with friends, creating almost infinite possibilities of things to try. Sure one can get stuck in a rut or not have the right group of people around to do what you want to practice on a particular day. And skydiving does cost a chunk of money. So there are practical limits. But there's always something to try that's new or something to get better at.

I could be totally wrong: Eustress perhaps? Stress which is perceived by the individual as desirable, as part of a challenge. Such as skydiving, if that's what they want to be doing, even if it scares them a little. Haven't heard the term in years; coined in the 70s by a Hungarian scientist, Hans Selye, who worked in Montreal. "Pretentious, moi?"

I was curious about the panel naming issue so looked things up: A Piglet container manual refers to the canopy panels on a Piglet as "canopy extensions", while the Para Commander manual uses "stabilization panels" and also shortens it to "stabilizers". So it looks like different companies used different terms, even if skydivers didn't distinguish between the brands in whatever term they used.

As a rigger I don't mind. But keep in mind what the rigger is familiar with or not. Fixing some stitching on a BASE container may be the same as on a skydiving container. Patching a BASE canopy may be the same as patching a skydiving canopy. But if the rigger doesn't know a particular container's design, or BASE design in general, he's not going to know the subtleties of a rig. Give him a BASE rig from a few years back to evaluate and he may have no clue about specific design features, whether a feature is now considered old fashioned in the industry, acceptable, or top of the line.

But I thought that video tests*, and analysis, show that jumpers may or may not pass through the 45 degree line, or hover around it, depending on aircraft speed. In typical circumstances, a jumper will go out the door and be at a relatively steep angle (relative to a line to the horizon), get to a shallower angle as they get decelerated horizontally but haven't picked up much vertical speed, and later in the fall get to a steeper angle again when they're dropping vertically faster than the typical jump aircraft is travelling horizontally. The angle has to do with the jumper's body position to some degree (low or high drag), and largely to do with the aircraft's speed. But unless there is wind shear in the altitudes not far below the plane where the jumpers are being watched, the angle has nothing at all to do with upper vs. lower winds. Small amounts of wind shear will have only a small effect on angle. Aircraft speed will affect it, but then one can use easier to measure time rather than trying to discern 45 degrees vs 50 degrees or the like. So instead of the 45 degree rule, you'd be better served by just using a 7-10 second rule -- OK in a lot of cases but not in some. -------------- *Von Novak's classic video test results once again: http://www.dropzone.com/content/Detailed/628.html

Not much John, what's ew with you? But seriously folks, I'm not sure what the EW designation is, although the obvious guess is that the suspended weight is meant. Is the VS 384 just a military EZ 384 from RWS / UPT? I'm not familiar with it. Tandem canopies of various types do get solo jumps from time to time. New tandem instructors have to do one, and some places might do a so called line stretch jump on a new canopy. Has anyone ever had problems? I might avoid flying at ultra low wing loading in turbulent weather, but that's about all.

+1 That old saying is common but confusing as hell, and doesn't provide any sort of good decision making tree. Interpreting it is more like some ancient Greek riddle where one has to consider all the different possibilities until realizing what it means. If the priority to pull is more important than doing so at the correct altitude, we'd pull right out the door. (Even just "pull at the correct altitude" needs to be restated a little differently for newbies, so that you don't have to start adding extra caveats like the mind teaser "don't pull low unless you are".)

Don't know much about it but there was a thread a couple years back about a similar problem with that unusually solid cable-to-cutter connection in the C2. Rare but it does happen, and Airtec knows that it happens.

First, remove the main canopy. With a sharp surgical knife or similar cutting knife, make an incision through the main to reserve wall at the non-cable end of the Vigil, carefully entering the AAD pouch. Extract the body of the Vigil through the cut. Follow the Vigil manual to open the case and disconnect the control unit and cutter cables. Tuck cables back inside the pouch, optionally sear the fabric ends to prevent ravelling, and carefully hand tack the incision shut, finishing with a surgeon's knot plus an extra overhand knot. No repack required and the seal remains intact! Some stuffy old riggers probably disagree but this laparascopic style rigging is the new way to do things. [This advice is worth what you paid for it and you waive all liability if following my advice.] I'd better add a lot of smileys.

Seems reasonable ... on a main. I've done a finger trap splice, inserting short piece of line, with some hand stitching, to get someone back in the air for a demo jump. Despite the rules, I bet it is very tempting to just do that instead of much more time consuming or expensive options (like a full disassembly of the PC or buying a new one), for those annoying wear points that happen on some reserve pilot chutes. Makes me wonder to what degree modern adhesives actually degrade nylon, and how long it takes, even if that's the issue stated in rigging books for decades. Edit: And I can see a customer complaining that if a wear spot exists in his reserve PC, then it is the fault of his riggers anyway, because the wear happens through packing ...

And obviously (as you would know), we'd really want to dig deeper and find out not just how many times people barrel roll and then dump in someone's face, but also look at the frequencies and ratios for various situations, for having someone above or not, barrelling or not, seeing someone above or not (if there is someone) if one has barrelled, taking effective action or not (if there is someone above and one has spotted them), etc. But still your point is acknowledged -- You are saying that a quick barrel roll can be ineffective in avoiding the very thing it purports to avoid -- at least based on incidents you know of.

I might have seen the same video (not publicly linked). On the one I saw, the guy has an uninterrupted period of 10 seconds where his head (as evidenced by the camera) is facing generally down and forward, before he glances to both sides, followed by just under 2 seconds spent doing a barrel roll, before facing down again and having a very near miss with someone who had just pulled slightly ahead and a fair bit lower than him. The question is, would 2 extra seconds of looking forward and down have helped him spot the conflict and reduce the risk? Or that after 10 seconds of not seeing any potential conflict, 2 more wouldn't have mattered? The video can be used as a good example of what you can fail to see while of doing a barrel roll. (Yet was the guy below stupid presumably not to roll? Or should he have stupidly done a roll, just because someone above might be stupid and not see his waveoff, perhaps due to stupidly doing a roll? It's messy.)

Too bad about the writing style -- sounds like one pass, dictation to printed page, with little editing. Unexpected especially as he has two co-authors listed!

So the question is, what you think improved your landings on the 190 vs the 210. Just a better canopy? More energy so more time in the flare to adjust it? Easier to get it to swing forward in the flare? Maybe that's for the other thread you had, where you asked about that downsizing move.

Toronto area: PST has a small gear store on site, run by Rick Cahais, who will help with ordering gear that's not in stock. At STI, J-rodd who runs the rigging loft may have a couple helmets like the Benny in stock and will also assist with ordering gear. Just ordering from US gear companies can be simpler if one isn't out at a DZ, but may cost more in shipping. Protec's and Benny's are indeed common first helmets.

Did they at least dock or get some points turned first? Wouldn't want it to be a totally wasted jump... BSBD

Ah, a "Lodi loop" as I heard it called in a thread a few years back - search for "Quick loop on a Vector III?". Whether I'd want to use it, I'm not sure. Sounds like one of those things where if you as the rigger determine it is compatible, it is, and if you don't, it isn't...

In other words, the miracle of addition.