pchapman

Do you have examples of that? (I don't recall any off hand, but that's why I'm asking.) The Speed manual (latest = 2009) says nothing pro or con any sort of soft links. It only mentions that regarding the links, one should "assure the barrel nuts are tight". Only if you are ridiculously strict in interpreting manufacturer's rules, would you conclude that any links without barrel nuts are prohibited. It is as if a container manual's chapter on packing the main parachute stated, "Remember to cock your pilot chute!", and thus you conclude that non-collapsible pilot chutes are prohibited on that rig.

Yeah there is an unwritten expectation that while balloons (and gliders, hang gliders, paraglider pilots, and skydivers) do sometimes semi-randomly have to land in someone's private property, nobody should be expected to put up with it too often. But that gets us into the whole skydiver off landing thing, as we tend to end up within say a mile of takeoff from a fixed airport, a much smaller radius of operation than some other air sports. (A vineyard might not be the best example. With all the metal stakes, I think that would be enough of a deterrent to balloonists etc. )

"Hmm, what altitude offset do I use?"

After reading the description of how it was done: Well that's handy, having other people's gear (sponsors') to dump into the water, instead of soaking your own. Sounds like there was no actual skydiving involved -- I had wondered about that cover shot, how 'perfect' it was -- not an actual jump into water. (But still a nice feat & well set up photography.)

Interesting to hear that there was more than one skydiving act this year! (So you were in competition with a foreign government's military and a caffeinated-sugar-water company...)

...People who don't put any effort into formulating posts on forums. Like the ones who are in an online forum for question and give their new thread a title like "got a question". That doesn't help differentiate things at all. Or those who want long complex replies but write one long paragraph with run-on sentences with no capitals or paragraph marks. I don't mind a few modern shortcuts with language, but a little effort towards readability and human factors is nice if one is asking a lot of others. Or those who write something like "check out this cool video on youtube" without describing WHY we should take our time to look at it, or what the subject matter may be, which would allow us to better decide whether to click through.

Yes, that's what I was saying. Videos are on youtube.

Di you recall where that is? I don't recall seeing that. Or is it in one of those vaguer statements (eg, staff instructions) that aren't actually in the Canadian Air Regs? That NPA 99-148 legislation never did pass, and that required student jumps to follow the plan of some approved organization I seem to recall. But again, that never became law. As for the Frazer river, I don't know when Pitt Meadows opened, but it sounds like they did just fine through the whole round main and/or round reserve era -- and then banned round reserves once it didn't matter as much.

@ those who are supporting the McNasty: Well, how the heck are balloons & balloon companies supposed to operate? Sometimes a ground crew can get out ahead and find the appropriate house to inquire about a particular field to land in... but I would guess that doesn't happen often. Fundamentally there has to be some agreement whether all balloonists are evil and the practice of ballooning must be stopped, if they operate anywhere where there is private property, or whether it is "normal" for balloons to land on private property -- where they can do it as long as they pay for any minor damage caused. Indeed, same goes for glider pilots, or *gasp* skydivers. What is a tolerable off-landing rate? No more than one jumper on a given person's private property per year, or else the DZ should be shut down? Otherwise someone is trying to make a profit off someone else's private property, because the DZ is too cheap to buy all the land within a mile of the airport. I'm not advocating any particular answer. Just saying that generally, ballooning has been tolerated as an aerial activity, and they do need to land on others' property. If so, a landowner is allowed to be a little upset, but can't be able to dictate safety-of-flight issues.

Good point, but the released brake line eye is going to yank quickly upwards under canopy pressure, while the jumper is yanking the toggle downwards, starting from zero speed but accelerating - and some pull a short distance, some pull further. So the brake line may move up at first. So stowing from the top might be at least as valid as stowing from the bottom, but off hand I don't know which works out best. Either way, having keepers with a softer edge sounds like a potential improvement.

Aside: 'The Asgard Project' they called it, for Mt. Asgard; plenty of it on youtube; I looked & confirmed they used BASE rigs from the Kenn Borek Air's turbine DC-3.

Correct! If you aren't doing a CSPA-related jump, and are not doing a demo jump (which have specific federal rules), you are free to jump what you want from an airplane, including a BASE rig. (E.g., On one of the big sponsored expeditions to Baffin island for BASE jumps, maybe 5+ years back, some of the crew jumped into their camp area from the aircraft transporting their equipment. I don't think they brought separate skydiving rigs along just for that...) Whether a DZO would want to rent out a plane for non-CSPA (or non-USPA) jumps, even away from the DZ, is another matter.

Pilot chute: Fair enough, but some of us are thinking about direct bag. No steenkin' pilot chute. SOS handle: Well, I suppose it can happen than you cut away the non RSL side and haven't yet pulled the extra inch or two to activate the RSL side. Still, without those antics, the student would likely have had a good main. Direct bag SL students are pretty likely to get some sort of canopy overhead. But there are always exceptions...

For what it's worth, the Canadian CSPA system: An "Accident, Incident, or Malfunction" report is to be submitted, which can be done by anyone involved (the jumper, an instructor, the DZO, or other qualified personnel) The DZ is to be informed or a copy given to them. Many DZ's probably don't bother much unless it involves a student -- because the school insurance won't apply unless the incident is reported. But I have been at a couple DZ's where the practice is to hand one of the AIM forms to anyone who had a mal etc. -- whether the reports get passed on or are used internally, that's another matter. At one DZ, we use the reports for a review at the next year's spring safety & instructor meetings. The CSPA Technical committee does look at reports and summarizes interesting trends or examples in its annual report, but the report is very short, and most jumpers don't see it, so we don't actually get a lot out of the whole system. If the issue for USPA members' trust is that the law may get hold of "confidential" reports, then the USPA might need to improve the way it de-personalizes reports, doing so soon after reports come in. (I don't know how it actually does things.) But while that is relatively easy for one-off incidents, it would be hard to do in the case of a serious accident where diffferent info may be collected over time. As for other confidential reporting systems, I don't know what protections NASA ASRS have, for example.

IF that really was the case, then that SOS system doesn't sound well adjusted -- if a student pulls only partially, it should cut away first, and rely on the RSL to pop the reserve if the student doesn't follow through far enough to move the reserve ripcord.

Just for reference: This would refer to the "Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center" incident from 2010. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4137658

Yes, an expired AAD must be pulled out in many jurisdictions, like the USA. In practice I think it isn't uncommon for someone to just keep jumping the rig until the next repack, and then remove the AAD. As a rigger, at the previous repack I would have marked very clearly on the repack card when the rig timed out due to the AAD, earlier than the normal 180 day cycle. But if a jumper sneaks it by manifest, that's their issue...

I can see that you don't like the situation, and there are plenty of reasons for that, but why would it technically be a violation of any TSO? Wouldn't it be the same if I jumped with my handles duct taped to my rig? Nothing to do with the rig TSO, just not very smart? Maybe an FAA violation if one argued that in functional terms, I was no longer jumping a 2-canopy rig (but I'd have to check the wording to be sure)?

... Probably because nobody has created an equivalent paper attacking the Vigil that vehemently. That "fact sheet" has been out for a while and has an unknown author as far as I know. Both the Vigil and Cypres make a correction for the burble behind a skydiver who is belly to earth -- which means both will fire a little higher (c. 250' more) for someone who is vertical after a low main pull. Airtec firmly rejects the notion that any of the fatalities listed were somehow the fault of the Cypres. Yet they have never deigned to address the accusations on a case by case basis -- which doesn't necessarily help their case. But finding any evidence, either way, is pretty hard. The amount of information available to the public on some of the accidents is pretty slim. Some of the accusations in the CYPRES FACT SHEET are laughable, while some cases are ones where skydivers just don't know the explanation -- and do indeed wonder what the heck happened. -- Example of a laughable accusation: 3/5/2005 (actually 5/3/2005 in the US notation used in the document) Perris Valley The paper includes this case in their list of "failures". The paper says "activation too low", with "claimed cause" (that is, what Airtec says) being "wrong altitude correction". That was the Susan Spray fatality, where as far as we skydivers know, it was made very very clear that she turned on the AAD at her home near sea level before driving on up to Perris at a higher elevation. So it was clearly not a Cypres failure in any way, unless you truly believe there's a big Airtec conspiracy that has everyone fooled. -- Example of an accusation that seems very weak, and deceptive because of what was omitted: 23/2/2005 Skydive Arizona The paper just says that the Cypres "did not activate". But looking up the accident on dz.com, it looks like the jumper pulled the cutaway handle only part way, only releasing one set of risers, spinning the rest of the way down, only manually pulling the reserve just before impact. That doesn't prove either way whether the Cypres was somehow not working right, but spinning under a partial canopy is a very good reason why the Cypres might never have reached firing parameters. -- Example of an accusation which is or is not valid depending on whether you trust Airtec at all: 6/15/2002 Sky Knights (WI) Junior jumper didn't deploy anything. The dz.com thread has one report that the Cypres was off. The AAD was supposedly sent to the manufacturer but no report is known to the public. Some of us might trust that the AAD had indeed been off all the time. The paper lists it as a "failure" though. Even if you don't buy that, they do list quite a large number of cases where the Cypres was supposedly not turned on. That is something not totally unreasonable to question -- were there really that many people who happened to have left their Cypres off? (The paper lists 17.) -- Example of an accusation where skydivers just don't know: 28/12/2008 Perris Valley That's the Brooke Baum case. No main activation, and a reserve seen only to start coming out at only 150' or so. The paper says the problem was that the Cypres fired too low, and indeed quotes part of the civil suit brought by a member of Brooke's family as evidence (as if getting sued in the USA actually is evidence of committing a wrong!). That is one of those cases where a Cypres fired yet the reserve never got out in time. There's a lot of speculation in our industry about issues with cut loops being slow to push out of grommets, and overly tightly pocketing containers. A PC can also get stuck in the burble for a moment if the jumper is really stable, or in other cases, if the jumper is tumbling, they might snag the PC for a moment, or have it pull at an angle that makes it difficult to remove from a modern container. (e.g. a recent video of someone with a reserve hesitation because he was on his back with the bridle coming over his shoulder -- he manually grabbed the reserve bridle and pulled the bag out of the container.) It is those types of accidents, where the Cypres fired but the reserve didn't come out in time, where there's a lot of reasonable speculation. Someone could suspect the Cypres for being unreliable in gauging altitude, or suspect non-AAD causes, depending on the person's personal beliefs about AAD reliability. I personally find the paper ridiculous and highly biased, but at the same time a few of the questions it asks are valid to ask, because we don't actually have much proof of what really happened in some accidents.

Two outs on static line? I've seen it happen from a student grabbing a not-well covered RSL while groping for toggles in an inappropriate place. Or popping the reserve pin from rubbing up aggressively on the swing-up door of a 182 while on the step. But those cases were 15 years back with older gear with poorer pin protection etc. But as Dave basically says, unless you are dispatching students on BASE gear, they can have a two out... There are debates about some of the details of flying with two outs, that have not been resolved to everyone's satisfaction in previous arguments on dz.com. E.g., better to keep brakes set on the front canopy if things are flying fine, or to pop the brakes? But even with details not fully resolved, most countries will have a reasonable set of recommendations to follow. E.g., see the USPA SIM.

Hang on. I've seen all sorts of varying numbers for altitudes. But I've seen it written that Constant Flow is OK to 30,000', Diluter-Demand to 33,000', and Positive Pressure above that level, since above that level one would be getting hypoxic even with 100% oxygen at the ambient pressure. But as I said, the numbers tossed around vary a lot. In a way, diluter-demand is only a way of saving on oxygen flow, not really improving on the physiology. That's why one can do constant flow up to quite a high altitude, if one can afford to be wasteful about oxygen. However, you are right that diluter-demand is superior IF one is talking about certain mask designs. So for example even if you crank up the oxygen flow, at some point having a cannula, small hose in one's mouth, or a mask with holes is not enough. When you breathe in, you suddenly need a larger volume of air, so that can't be supplied all of a sudden from the fixed rate of oxygen from the little hose. You either suck the air in from outside too (not desirable if too high), or you need a bag attached to the mask which holds either oxygen or an air-oxygen mix -- or you use diluter-demand which can supply a larger volume of air & oxygen when combined with a large diameter hose (fighter pilot style). So there is also a large difference in mask types, not just the regulators used. Masks can have open ports, they can have simple partial valve systems, they can have full valve systems, they can have a non-rebreather storage bag, or they can have a rebreather bag. Some systems are fine to a certain altitude, above which a more sophisticated system is needed to provide more oxygen in the mix. I'm not explaining all the details here, just making the point for this thread in general, that there are some additional complexities.

Depending on the gear one may also have bruises not seen until taking a shower... I have heard the term "Otter bites" used after bad exits that contact the doorway, especially for scrapes from the aft edge.

I do wonder though, to what degree it is true. Certainly a tail unsupported by brake lines on opening can flip up. Old Bridge day videos show openings that sucked when misrigged brake likes blew and the tail folded upwards initially -- but later the canopy flew without much distortion. The tail should be stiff enough through internal pressure to stay in place when simply rear riser flaring. For example, if one has a swoop canopy, the tail doesn't totally distort just because you have an extra 6" slack in your brake lines. The tail doesn't start to fold upwards. Nor does it flip up in the center section where there are no brake lines to begin with. If you are starting a rear riser flare, the tail is only supported fully in the first place if you're on a canopy with Spectra brake lines that have shrunk to zero slack. So normally, internal pressure will keep the tail reasonably in the right place even under the small additional forces from a rear riser flare. So I'm half way on this: An unsupported tail may distort and add a hazard, but I don't think things will automatically go bad.

I once typed out the Canadian 1958 BSR's that I found. https://sites.google.com/site/chapmansrigging/home/1958-bsr-s One wasn't permitted to jump because of a dare or bet. We also had the bat-wing ban. And anyone over the ripe old age of 36 had to be specially considered before being allowed to learn to jump. And you couldn't do a demo on your first jump.

I dunno. But a few ideas: The sport if full of small businesses set up by people for the love of the activity and not purely as a business investment. Many DZ's are small relative to other businesses. I've seen river rafting businesses that are absolutely huge and professional compared to the average drop zone. While there are more full time staff these days, the industry also relies a lot on contracted part time staff. That doesn't mean that, say, your instructor is any less interested in doing a good job, but from jump to jump you may get different instructors with different skill sets and the results become more variable. Staff are often recruited from within. A girl who isn't jumping much gets a job in manifest -- the DZ doesn't necessarily hire Commerce grads or those with years of retail experience. Historically, assumptions among skydivers about what is acceptable may be different from other business services -- a construction trailer and a packing tent in a field is enough to be a DZ's facilities, leading to some tandem students looking around in amazement when the arrive to drop a good chunk of money on their day's adventure. Some of these things have changed over the years, and don't necessarily apply to the largest DZs. I do see the point about customer service if one is talking about students: if I go into a regular store, I'll get good service whether I'm buying a T-shirt or a $1000 item. I wouldn't get told that staff are overwhelmed with all the big dollar customers so that just maybe, at sunset, they'll be able to have time to squeeze in a T-shirt sale...