davelepka

Unless you're applying double fronts, right? Then it just doesn't need to be considered? Let's look at kiting your canopy on a windy day. What's the safest thing to do when the wind is pciking up? Get the canopy overhead because it has the least amount of drag, and will simply 'fly' quietly in a higher wind than in any other position. If you let the canopy rock back, the bottom skin begins to catch air, and the drag increases substantaily, maybe pulling you off of your feet. The basic idea is that any deviation from your canopy being 'level' in terms of pitch angle relative to a horizontal plane will increase drag when flying in winds. More drag equals slower flight, which equals less ground covered flying into the wind. All of these discussions are surrounding landing in high winds, so the increase in drag needs to be considered. Yes, in high winds your glide angle in full flight is steeper, but your glide angle in double fronts also suffers an equal loss from the higher winds, you just get to the ground faster. It's a scientific fact that at some trim setting the canopy will have the most favorable lift over drag, just like the best glide speed in an aircraft. That is the trim setting that will net you the greatest distance for a given altitude loss. This is the setting you want to use if distance is your goal when flying into the wind, and it's nowhere near pulling down both front risers, and it's probably not even full lfight.

You cannot discount the effect of the 'real' wind on the canopy. For example, in no wind if you fly your canopy due west, the realtive wind will come from the east and your ground track will be due west. Now add a stiff north wind. The relative wind as far as the canopy is concerned is still coming from the east, however there is an added component in the north wind, and the groundtrack is now southwest. The 'real' wind has a real effect on the canopy in relation to the ground. The real wind does not have an effect on the flight characteristics of canopy when not considering the ground. Flying above a cloud deck in 50mph winds or 5mph winds will always be the same, but once you get below the cloud deck and the ground comes into view, the two wind scenarios will produce two very different canopy rides with realtion to the ground. Trying to increase your ground track with double fronts certainly involves the ground, and as such the real wind needs to be considered.

Lean condition? Poor cooling? Lot's of stop and go traffic? The rear cylinder on an aircooled twin has a tough time as all of it's air has already been heated by the front cylinder. This is why Ducati uses such a wide angle V, and the front cylinder is always laid down close to horizontal. It allows the rear cylinder access to clean, fresh air, and it became neccesary as the power output, and of course heat production, of their engines went up. So a lean condition that might not effect the front cylinder as much because of it's superior cooling might manifest itself as burned valves in the rear cylinder. A leaking intake valve would also result in a lean condition as more air would pass through the leak than fuel, and result in a leaner mixture. The size and shape of the carb, intake port and valve are all designed to optimize the fuel atomization, and when you alter that by partially closing a valve (like when a valve doesn't seal) the fuel atomization will be compromised, and the mixture that makes it past the leak will be lean, which of course burns hotter.

You're missing a key aspect of this whole thing, that being drag. There are two types of wind, the relative wind, and the real wind. In zero wind conditions, you still have the relative wind of your movement through the still air effecting the canopy, but when you add 'real' wind, you now have two factors to deal with. When I mentioned the 'least' drag flight mode for a canopy, I'm speking with reagrds to the real wind. When you apply double front risers, your angle of attack decreases, but so does the angle of the relative wind as the glide path becomes steeper so the drag increase is only due to the increase in airspeed. Now when you consdier the effect of the 'real' wind, you have another story. The 'real' wind moves horizontally, and that does not change when you change the angle of attack of your canopy. So when you honk down on the front risers, you 'show' more of your topskin to the 'real' wind, and increase drag. So if you are going straight down, with zero groundspeed, adding front risers will not give you more forward speed into the wind. It will give you a steeper glide angle, and steeper than zero (aka going straight down) is a negative value (aka going backwards). This effect is why you can sometimes go further into the wind with some rear riser input. If your canopy is trimmed such that it is not fully 'streamlined' into the 'real' wind, if the trim is steep enough that the topskin is exposed to that wind, flattenting out the trim will put more of the canopy 'behind' the nose as opposed to out in the wind. While you can never get the realtive wind to match the 'real' wind, bringing the two clsoer together reduces the overall drag on the canopy. The basic idea with canopies is that they are unpowered craft, but you could consdier gravity to be a source of thrust, so maybe you could call them 'non-adjustable' powered craft. Without the ability to add or subtract power, every input you make to the canopy will have a trade off. It's the same thing in an airplane until you touch the throttle. At a single power setting, you can trim the aircraft though a variety of configurations, but they all have a trade off. You can trim the nose up for a longer glide, but you'll sacrifice airspeed. You can trim the nose over for more airpseed, but at the expense of a reduced glide (sound familiar?). All of this is with the exception of a 'best glide' speed. All aircraft have a published figure that reperesents the power off speed at which the AC will glide the furthest. This is determined and provided for the case of engine failures, it allows the pilot to set the airspeed to best glide, and offer himself the most options for choosing a landing site. This best glide speed is above the stall speed, which is the slowest speed the aircraft can fly. So just going as slow as the AC can go will not buy you the most time aloft and in turn offer you the most options for landing, and the reason is drag. The best glide speed is where the lift over drag ratio is the lowest, and it's somewhere a few ticks above the stall speed. All of this is similar to my assertion about canopies flying into the wind benefitting from some rear riser. Full flight does (or may) not optimize the L over D, so coming closer to that will actually fly you further into the wind. Even if the rear riser theory is not correct, the fact remains that you don't ever fly further by pulling on the front risers. It's just not how things work.

I'm going to disagree with a lot of people, but I call BS on extending a glide with front risers. It cannot be done. When you pull both front risers down, your airspeed will increase, but only because you have re-trimmed the canopy for a steeper glide. The canopy goes faster down a steeper hill, but the bottom of that hill is closer in than the bottom of the full flight hill. You will not fly further by going down a steeper hill. If you happen to be backing up, in that one case, you will back up a shorter distance by landing sooner, but only in that one case. If you are coming straight down, or making any headway at all, you're best bet will depend on your canopy, but the only choices will be full flight, or some rear risers. Full flight is the safest bet, however some canopies may experience a reduction in drag with a slight input to the rear risers. Enough to offset the reduction in airpseed, and allow you to fly further into the wind. The full flight trim of a canopy is not selected based on the coefficient of drag, but the desired airspeed and turn recovery characterisitcs of the canopy. Especially in the cases of higher performance canopies, with their super steep trims, often times the lowest drag will be at a slightly shallower trim than full flight. How this applies to any one canopy is for the pilot to determine either through expereince, training, or some sort of testing. Using too much rear riser in high winds will increase the drag, and decrease your ground speed, so proceed at your own risk.

They make Jap cruisers in every size from 250cc up to 1800cc, so you should have no trouble finding one in there to get started on. Honda makes a Shadow 600 that was a good bike you could find for low dollars. Also, if you put in a year on a 'starter' cruiser, you could almost go right to any cruiser you want. Especially with cruisers, once you're comfortable with the controls, and dealing with traffic, a bigger bike isn't a big deal. A 1200cc cruiser isn't exactly twice as fast as a 600cc, and even then it's only faster if you give it the gas. Once you get comfortable with the controls (like the throttle) it's just a matter of not dialing in too much throttle, and the bike will go as slow as a 250cc. The main benefit of a big motor cruiser is the low RPM on a highway, not the balzing fast top end. Sport bikes are another story. A top line sport bike will do 175mph, and will get there very quickly, much faster than it will stop from 175. Also, the intent of a 'sport bike' rider is to be sporty. In that sense, those riders would benefit from some restraint when it comes to bike selection. If you intend to go fast, how fast makes a difference.

Right-o. Now you know the score for the next time you need some rigging work. Also, the risers, toggles and d-bag/pc all go with the rig. The canopy, slider and links go with the canopy. You can switch most risers to other containers provided they have the same sized rings, and if you use and RSL, it's on the same side on both rigs. Technically, the d-bag/pc should not be switched from rig to rig, unless the rigs are the same brand and size. You can 'get away' with using a different d-bag in your container if the bag was built for a rig similar in size to yours, but the right way to do it is to keep the bag with the container is was made for. If you guys want to do the 'full' switch and swap the risers, think about doing it with a rigger. If you do it wrong, it will take a rigger twice as long to sort out your mistakes, and they'll charge you for every second. If you work with a rigger, they'll be able to show you the 'easy' way to switch canopies around, and will be able to offer tips on varous related areas of the process, and it will be right the first time.

The smallest bike Harley makes is an 883 Sportster, but that's a base model and kind of a chick bike. The 1200 Sportster is un upgrade from that, and a little more manly. Neither one is a good choice for a first bike. Many people have used tham as first bikes, and will say that they were fine, but whatever, The Blast is discontinued, along with every other Buell. A month or so back Harley pulled the plug on Buell (Harley bought Buell a few years back). There are great starter bikes available in any style you want. Do you want a cruiser, like a Harley, or a sportbike, like a Ninja? How about a dirt bike that legal to ride on the street, or just your basic sit-up straight motorcycle? Once you pick that, we can offer some suggestions for models to look into. Buying a used bike is a good idea for the first bike. You can ususally find something nice $2000 or less, and if you drop it or ding it up, no big deal. You'll also be able to sell it for most of the purchase price after a year of riding.

What do you mean by 'swapped' mains? Is this premanent switch, or are you just trying each others canopies? If this is anything but a permanent switch, than leaving the risers on the canopies is the way to go. As others have mentioned, that way is a 5 minute swap. Switching the risers could be a 30 min or an hour, depending on how it all goes. If the rigs are returned packed, that will push it closer to an hour, unoacked closer to 30 min. In tersm of cost, even if you were charged for the not switching the risers, keep the pack jobs in mind. If both rigs were returned packed, that would add $10 to $20 to the cost. Two pack jobs normally cost $10, but riggers typically charge $60/hr. for labor, so your cost could be anywhere in between, Now if the rigs were returned unpacked, and the risers not switched, you shouldn't have been charged more than $5 or $10 for the switch.

Like others have mentioned, the general public isn't as impressed with cutting edge skydiving as skydivers are. They don't understand the difference in skill required between making a simple 4-way jump, and wingsuiting down a mountain. A skydiver is a skydiver to the gen. pop. Point Break worked as well as it did because it smuggled some skydiving into a big Hollywood picture. Big stars, big budget, lots of movie studio promotion made it a box office smash. 99% of the people who saw it didn't go for, or even know there were skydiving scenes. That's how the industry got a spike, millions of unsuspecting people made a 'speed star' with Swayze and Keanu, and learned about something new. This new movie appears very short on stars, budget (in Hollywood terms) and story. It's going to appeal to skydivers, and skydiver-like people. Nobody is going to become 'aware' of skydiving by seeing this movie, they're already going to be familiar with the sport. Industry changing ability aside, it looks like a cool movie, and I'll catch it for sure whenever it comes out.

Don't bother. The idea is that you pre-pay for a package and get a dicsount price. That price only covers doing each jump one time. Going more than 30 days is an automatic repeat of the previous jump, and will represent an increased cost for the complete program. I didn't read all the details, but you can also 'not pass' a level by not completing the required manuvers for that jump. In that case, you would have to repeat that level until you can complete all the required manuvers on that jump, and those jumps would also represent an additional cost on top of the package. It's really to your benefit in every way to make the student jumps in a timely fashion. Once you get started, plan on spending at least one day each weekend and the DZ, and try to make a couple jumps each time. Also, some DZs are open during the week (and some by appointment only), but if you have a free evening, making a jump after work is always a good way to break up the work week.

No F-111. Even F-111 in great shape isn't for you. Demand the finest in 1991 technology, and go with z-po.

Or use the phrase 'OMG' at anytime, anywhere for any reason.

In case you wondering, the above paragraph is where you went from being right to being wrong. The only reason not to buy new rigs, or any gear, when you're a brand new jumper is money. The majority of new jumpers aren't swimming in cash, so the few thousand bucks they can save buying used equates to a good number of jumps, which is probably more valuable than a brand new rig. However, if money was not an issue, than I'd say buy the best every time, without concern for cost or resale value. Early on in the thread you indicated that your folks had a few bucks and were willing to fund the new rig. Perfect, and that was the reason I didn't post and suggest a used rig. It's all about the money, and it seems that you have it. Then the AAD issue comes up, and you say dumb thing after dumb thing, and then you sum it all up saying you don't want to spend the money. This is an item that is required for every student rig and every tandem rig, so you have to figure that it's usefulness has been proven as being well beyond any drawbacks, including the cost. You start off your defence by suggesting that your jump numbers will be limited. This is actually MORE of a reason to have an AAD, not a reason against it. I would suggest that a jumper who is more experienced, and more aware of his surroundings and the situaitons he's putting himself into might have more of a footing in an argument against an AAD. To go along with that, keep in mind that your low jump numbers will also mean a low level of currency. There's nothing like the passage of time to smooth over some of the finer points of skydiving. Currency is king, and without it, an AAD ain't a bad idea. Does your mom know about AADs? Is she aware that the $2000 container you're buying does not have that safety device installed? Is she aware that the only thing between her son having or not having an AAD is money? No legal issues, forms to fill out, or permits to get signed? Just a phone call, $1200, and three days for UPS to do it's thing? I'm willing to bet she has no idea, and also willing to bet she'd be real interested to hear all about it. In the end, if you insist on a brand new rig with 30 jumps and you don't buy an AAD because of the cost, I can only think of one word for you - tool.

You might want to sit down for this - You're not special. I don't care what your mom says, but you're just like everyone esle. The rules were made for everyone, including you. Deal with it.

Good for your ex-wife, I'm glad things worked out well. I don't remember any of their names, and I never married any of them, but I can picture an easy dozen guys in my mind who were 'problem' students that instructors worked and worked to get them through their training, and it ended with the jumper getting hurt and never jumping again. I would tend to look at an instructor who never turned away a student not as a hero, but closer to a selfish prick who doesn't realize that sometimes looking out for the students best interest means telling them 'no'. If a student doesn't respond to the 'normal' training in the FJC, that's a sign that this is not a normal student. If that same student, after modified training, performs poorly on the skydive, that's another sign. If that poor performance follws the student to another instructor, and that instructors style of trianing, that's yet another sign, and it's not a sign that both instructors and every trick they have are sub-par, it's a sign the student is in the wrong place. Part of your job as an instructor is protecting your student from undue danger (like walking into a prop) and for some people, exiting an aircraft presents undue danger to their person, Not everyone is cut out to be a skydiver. Get over yourself, and realize that it's not about you and how great you are, it's about playing the odds and keeping people from hurting or killing themselves.

There's no excuse for poor tracking, but there are 100 excuses for 'differences' in canopy flight, and this is part of the problem with enforcement, big way or ortherwise. We're dealing with non-powered aircraft here, so there are no holding patterns or go-arounds possible. Everyone on a given load is opening within 45 or 60 seconds of each other, and everyone is on a non-stop flight to the DZ. You're going to have traffic no matter what you do. Even if you try to assign sectors and landing orders to people, again you're dealing with non-powered craft, and sometimes their options are limtied. A longer or shorter snivel, a hard pull or PC hesitation can give or take an easy 500 to 800ft, and suddenly the jumper isn't where they expected to be. Chnages in winds, or a problem with a slider or toggle (stuck brake, sound familiar) can also 'adjust' the position of a jumper relative to where they were supposed to be. So what are their choices? Land off is one, but few would be willing to bite that bullet when they can easily make the DZ, albiet in a different sector, or with an alternate pattern. So they 'choose their own adventure' and land on the DZ but alternate to their intended plan. What do you do with this jumper? Yes, they went counter to the plan, but they had a hard pull and a stuck brake, and they couldn't make it to the pattern in their assigned sector. They didn't mean any harm, and didn't do it with malice, but they ended up where they ended up. Do you ax them from the big way they traveled for? Do you ground them all together? That's the problem with enforcing canopy flight regulations, the variables that exist make having that strict of a plan close to impossible. People do have to make choices at the last minute, and youwould run out of jumpers if you had to bust every one of them every time it happens. To be clear - none of this excuses stupidity. Swooping where swooping is not allowed. Flying where flying is not allowed, or just not paying attention in general. None of that is acceptable in any way, and some of those people do need to sit out for a while to get the point. As far as the good-intentioned population as a whole goes, trying to adhere to strict regulation is not the answer. Finding some way to instill good judgement in people is. How to do that, and how to make it stick such that it endures the rush and focus of a skydive. to exist down close to the ground regardless of what happened in the previous 60 seconds is beyond me, but that's what needs to happen.

Note the size of the people in the line. 70 oz. beers. Size of people. 70 oz. beers. Big people. 70 oz. beers. Seems normal to me.

Well, if he's got a string of those x-rays from different injuries, then I guess I could see your point. If he only has the one, you don't really have much of a point. The whole post is lamenting the repetition of easily avoidable injuries under open, fully functioning canopies. I know he only states the 5 so far from this year, but I'm sure the dozens of them in years past also played a role in the creation of the post. Even if TK did wangle himself into the ground one time, the lack of a repeat performance would indicate that he did indeed 'learn', which is unlike the growing crowd of people who were fully aware of the risks of high winds, turbulence, and heavy traffic, but proceeded to jump in them without concern, and paid the price for their avoidable mistake.

The answer to your question is the same answer you're asking about, that being 'ask your instructor'. What I mean by that is this - any of the instructors you worked with during your student jumps should be available to answer your questions, and what you should ask them is, "Who should I talk to about canopy progression and downsizing?". While your instructors may not be the most qualified canopy pliots on the DZ, they know who is, and can point you in the right direction. In terms of who they point you towards, it's less important that they know you, and more important that they know about canopy flight. A canopy coach can learn everything about your abilities with a conversation and by watching a few landings. In contrast, a guy who's watched your every jump, but lacks the in depth knowledge of canopy flight would be hard pressed to give you accurate information. At 30 jumps, you should be VERY close to what Brian Germain reccomends on his Wl chart. You should remain close to those numbers until you have a chance to take a canopy control course, and build some jump numbers. With experience and a course under your belt, you'll be in a better position to make your own downsizing choices.

While this may be true, any canopy that is 'used' could have any length of brake line installed. Maybe it was set up for a very short female, and the stall is chest-high for a standard height person. The point is this - any jump on a new canopy should begin with an evaluation of the set-up - brake line length, stall point, slow flight, etc. This need is magnified the higher up you go in WL, as the behavior of the canopy close to the ground becomes even more critical. Any unusual findings should be investigated by a check of the line trim before the next jump. So the guy in this thread, who claims to be an aeronautical engineer, is jumping a 109 at 1.87 and doesn't have this basic information. I would suggest that a 109 at 1.87 is an expert level canopy, but his knowledge of canopies and their set-up appears to be far from expert. It's sad.

There's a chance he's just trying to fill out a smaller coach course. You'll learn all sorts of stuff, but you'll also tie up a couple of days in a classroom and spend a couple hundred bucks. If they can get you the rating without the 100 jumps, and you plan to get the rating eventually, take it. If you're not sure about it, take your couple of days and cash and just spend them fun jumping.

News flash - you have 100 jumps, and nothing but more jumps is going to make you look cool while you jump. Here's what you do - wear your cool sunglasses in the plane, and two minutes before exit, stash them in your jumpsuit pocket, and put on a functional pair of googles. Look for ones that provide a good seal from the wind, and offer the widest field of vision. Protecting your contacts, and maintaining useful vision should be very high on your list of priorities. After you land, retrieve your cool shades from your jumpsuit, and return them to your face. Total time not looking cool - less than five minutes, the five mintues from jumprun to landing, when as mentioned before, you look like a guy with 100 jumps aka, not that cool anyway.

PLF all of your landings on your next jumping day and see if the problem goes away.

Once you put the canopy on the ground, put both of your knees on the warning label with you facing toward the canopy. Now that you have that end 'secure', you can start to push the air out of the canopy. Work the canopy in sections, say 12" at a time. Push the air out, and shape the canopy so it's about as wide as the bag. Once you have a 12" section done, scoot your way up the canopy so your knees are now on top of the 12" section you just worked. Repeat this process until you get to the top of the canopy. If you prefer to do the 'reverse bag' technique, get your bag all straightened out and ready to go, then scoot your knees back down the canopy just far enough to expose just enough canopy to make your first fold. In this way, you keep control of the canopy as you work your way up the canopy pushing the air out, and then back down the canopy putting it in the bag. When you do put your knees on the canopy, make sure they are not in the exact center, but closer to each edge, If you put them in the center, it leaves room for the canopy to 'squirt' out to the side while you work. If you place them just outside of the center, the canopy will only be able to 'squirt' itself to the inside, where it's contained by the outer skin of the canopy.