davelepka

No, you really haven't. You'll need way more wind to foot launch even the best choice of skydiving canopies, and an Electra 170 at 1.6 isn't even close to the best choice. Once you launch, that same wind is going to keep you from getting to your LZ. Adding brakes is only going to make it worse. What you need to do is seek some proper instruction using appropriate gear. Find a clear hill with no obstructions between the launch and LZ. It may seem like a simple proposition, but keep in mind how badly you can hurt yourself by making even a small error under canopy. Just because you didn't start your flight by jumping out of a plane, the canopy flight is just as dangerous as if you did.

Keep in mind that what I was talking about was the opposite, bags that are too tight and where the flap doesn't reach the rim of the bag. The lockign stow is then pulled tight to bridge the gap and hold the bag shut. Now the locking stow is under much more tension than usual, and if it was to break, the bag is already halfway open. That said, your setup sounds fine. The same tension that keeps all of your other stows secure, will keep your locking stows secure as well. You want to make sure you have a nice 2.5" or 3" bight of line in the locking stows, to ensure that they hold tight, even in the event of a little slippage. There is an extreme opposite, where the bag is too big, and the fit is very loose. In those cases, the canopy itself has too much room to move around inside the bag and during deployment things don't stay the way you packed them. I don't think that a 170 in a J3 would be that loose. It's probably a vey reasonable fit, and makes for easy packing and a lot of control over what you're putting into the bag. Keep in mind that the majority of rigs out there have too much canopy stuffed into them. Having a small rig seems to appeal to everyone, not just the guys with the sub 100 main/reserve combos. Even the guys jumping 170s will usually try to buy the smallest rig they can stuff them into. Even if they say it's so they can downsize their canopy with buying a new container, the majority of them will buy a smaller container when they downsize, and end up stuffing a 150 into a rig made for a 135. If your canopy is on the smaller end of what the manufacturer says will fit, you're on the right track. Very few people can eyeball the difference between a J2 or a J3, but when you get down to packing them, the difference becomes clear. Fast forward that to the 8th pack job on a 90 degree day, and it's that much more of a benefit, and it allows you to bag a cleaner pack job.

Another problem with locking stows, and this would also be a contributing factor to bag strip, is poor packing technique, or over-stuffed bags. I see many jumpers who have to stretch their locking stows several inches just to get the bag shut. When they do, the stows remain stretched, and the bag is not excactly what I would call 'closed'. In this configuration, the locking stows are under far more tension than the other stows, and the gap beteen the flap and the rim of the bag is considerable. So you have stows that are more likely to break, and the room for the canopy to 'squirt' out of the bag. Properly sized d-bags for the canopy, and proper packing technique will keep the tension on the locking stows within reason, and keep the canopy better contained throughout the deployment. I have a bag that fits my canopy, and when the bag is closed, there is virtually no canopy visible from the outside. This means the only tension on my locking stows is the tension they provide around the bight of line, and I get a good number of jumps from my locking stows. I actually get more jumps from my locking stows then my regular stows. I use a standard Dacron line sized rubber band for all my stows (on 500 Vectran line), and I single stow the locking stows, and double stow all the rest. The locking stows will last 20+ jumps, while the other stows sometime only make it a couple jumps. I hear what you're saying about rubber bands, and the pros and cons of different strengths. Between standard rubber bands, tandem bands, micro-line bands, single stow or double stow, and different combinations of the above, there's a combination that will make you happy, and give you the security and band life you're after. Using an unbreakable stow anywhere on your bag is not the answer. I used bungee stows for awhile about 15 years ago, and they lack the elasticity of rubber bands, wear out quickly, and are just a bad idea in general. In a freebag application, with the single safety stow that rides free in a channel, is much different than on a regualr D-bag. Even if the stow won't break, it will release from the bag if one side or the other comes out, a feature not found on a regular d-bag.

Yeah, I'm sure that's whats going to happen. Nobody would think that the equipment is what makes it all happen, and that the 300 lineset and RDS are what you need for every jump. Just like the myth that you have to load a Velo at 2.2+ to make it fly 'right', nobody believes that.

My bet is for daily fun jumping and some tandem video.

What I said actually applies to harness turns as well. Any 'accelerating' or 'diving' turn presents the problems of hitting the canopy's terminal velocity, and either needing more input (accelerating) or risk swinging back under the wing and pitching the nose up and out of the dive. A toggle, or rear riser turn, on the other hand does not suffer from this problem. Those are 'braked' turns (not 'flat' turns), in which you are braking one side of the canopy to prodcue the turn. It does not count on the canopy to accelerate to maintain the turn, so you can achieve a steady state, consistant turn. This difference is also why front riser or hanress turns are more 'divey' then toggle or rear riser turns, and the main reason that front riser or hanress turns are the choice for swooping. The dive produced from a braked turn is more of a by-product of the wing getting ahead of the jumper as the one side flies around the braked side. This is why you can counter that dive by doing a flat turn, where the jumper compensates for the pitch change with toggle input. The dive from an accelerating turn is an essential part of the manuver, and this is why there's no way to do a 'flat' front riser or harness turn, and why there's no way to not be accelerating during such turns.

I'm not sure about your assumption. If we're talking about diving turns (front risers), there's no way to do a constant speed diving turn. The turn will always be accelerating until you hit the canopy's terminal velocity, at which point the greater drag of the canopy will push it back over your head, unless, of course, you decrease the AOA further (add input), and create a higher terminal velocity. So in a quick 360, you'll apply a large input for a short amount of time, and you'll be accelerating the entire time, but not reaching the terminal velocity of the canopy. In a slow 360, you'll start with a moderate input, and in order to continue the turn, you'll steadily increase that input to maintain the turn. Your canopy will be 'riding' the increasing wave of terminal veloicity as you apply greater and greater input. So at the end of your slow turn, when your input equals the same input you gave at the beginning of the quick turn, you're already at the (or very close to) the terminal velocity of the canopy for that input, the same terminal velocity you didn't reach with the quick turn. Higher speed for a longer time along a descending line equals more altitude loss.

Leave the packing alone. If the canopy is opening, and opening slow, that's exactly what you want. You can speed up the openings by pulling the rear risers during the snivel. Wait for the canopy to get out of the bag, and begin to snivel. Then grab the rear risers, and give them a little tug, maybe two inches or so, and this will 'encourage' the slider to come down. You can experiment with how far or how hard to pull the risers, but start off slow and easy and work your way up from there. Be sure that when you grab the rear risers, that you don't accidentally unstow a toggle. That would be bad. You will start to spin, but unstowing the other toggle will 'usually' stop the spin. If that doesn't work, cutting away will solve the problem.

Most of the palm sized camers, the ones you can sidemount, are made for right-handed people. So the screen, battery, and most of the buttons are on the left, and the right side (typically up against the users palm) is pretty barren. So you mount them on the left to maintain access to all the stuff.

Of course, they're not the ones who have to jump the canopy with your brain and your body weight. Here's an interesting thought - the purpose of this thread is to discuss going low on a formation. This is pretty basic information, and something I would think that you would know about with close to 150 jumps, but it turns out you don't know. You got yourself into a position you didn't know about, and according to others on your jump, you ended up creating a dangerous situaiton. Let's take that idea over to canopy control. Do you ever wonder things you might not know about canopy control? How many situaitons that could arise that you will have no idea how to handle (sound familiar)? If you had presented the same RW situation as above, but it was a 40 sequential out of 2 Otters, your ignorance of proper procedure would have been eclipsed by the fact that you were on a 40 way sequantial with 150 jumps. The focus would have surely been on the fact that you were on a jump designed for a much more expereinced jumper. That's about where you're at with your canopy choice. The Vengeance is a high performance canopy, designed for expereinced canopy pilots. A WL of 1.45 is more appropriate for a jumper with closer to 500 jumps than 150. Combine the two, and you have a situation which you should be nowhere near. Neither that canopy, nor that wingloading was ever intended for anyone close to your expereince level, and as proved by your earlier question, anyone with such a lack of basic skydiving information.

Oh yeah? Well, you're not married anymore, so go out and find a much younger, more attractive woman than your ex, and get yourself a hug (and whatever else you want).

I wasn't going to respond to you at first, but then it occurred to me that you may be a victim of your own ignorance. It's highly unlikely that you;ve been to several dropzones, and been exposed to a viariety of opinions, and as such, you'd be inclined to take what you're being told as the 'standard'. In case you were wondering, there are a variety of reasons that the generally accpeted wingloadings for new skydivers don't apply to lighter jumpers. These can be researched via the search function on this website. Just to put the advice you've been given into perspective, there is a well know phenomenon in skydiving where new, attractive females typically recieve more attention than other new jumpers. This attention is sometimes misguided and results in the new girl being offered advice and invited on jumps that might not be appropriate for them, but in an attempt to impress them, they are offered these things anyway. To go one step further, are you aware that Lodi has a reputation of being a little 'loose' with certain standards? Not too long ago they sent up a young lady on a student jump with no radio. Ground to air radios have become the standard at DZ everywhere, and students are spoken to under canopy until they prove they have the ability to safely fly the canopy themselves (typically 6 to 8 jumps). The girl in question was sent up withtout a radio, ended up in a bad situation, and proceeded to fly herself into a telephone pole and split her face open. It wasn't a bad spot, or a windy day, she just made a typical student error that could have easily been corrected with a ground to air radio. My impression is that they still do not provide radios to their studetns. A couple of years ago. a young male jumper had pruchased a canopy that was beyond his abilities. Actaully, the size of the canopy was very reasonable, but the type of canopy was too aggresive for his expereince level. Other DZs had actually turned him away based on the canopy in his rig. They did not want him jumping that canopy to the point that they refused to sell him a lift ticket. He dorve to Lodi, they put him right on the plane, and he made a low turn on landing and was killed on impact. For your sake, maybe shop around a little for other opinions on gear. Maybe visit another DZ, and see if you can locate a female instructor to discuss your gear choices with. This is the only way to ensure you're going to get an unbiased opinion. It's not a great situation, but being an attractive female in the sport, this is something to be aware of. You will not always recieve advice that is in your best interest, and sometimes it's tough to know what to believe. Make friends with some female instructors or highly experienced female jumpers, they will be your best ally in these matters.

What's interesting is that if you read her response to me, she states exactly what I said, that enough people at her home DZ are telling her it's OK, and on top of that she's planning ahead for jumps and skills she thinks she'll have when her rig shows up. Speaking getting your dick wet (not cyber dick) she even mentions that her instructor wants her to progress even faster than she is. Of course she mentions her petite body, which is always nice to hear about, but will do nothing to dampen the quick response of short lined canopies for a newbie. None of this will help her when she's jumping a 7-cell for her first time, and landing off in the vineyard with it's rows of sharp metal stakes. In the end, you know what they say, it's better to fit in and make people you just met happy then to be safe!

Both of those canopies suck for a chick with 30-some jumps as much as they suck for a guy. I didn't say anything because it looks like she jumps at Lodi, and she'll have far more people at the DZ telling her it's a great idea than people on the internet telling otherwise. Eveything seems like a great idea until you fly your canopy into a telephone pole.

How about a washer of some kind? Maybe a lock washer? A longer screw? A shorter screw? What about a nut? A lock nut? Some glue? Some tape? A rubber band? Some used chewing gum and a stick? A zip tie? Velcro? A strap of some kind?

Indeed they do, and a valid point in terms of what to watch out for this time of year. I can't help but notice that all four of these incidents were in locations with year-round jumping (2 x Florida, Georgia, and Texas). I'm not sure if these jumpers were current locals, or uncurrent visitors, but the locations are such that they could have been current and these incidents occurred despite that.

There is a failure that will cause the prop to stop turning, but there are far more options that allow the prop to windmill in the event of an engine failure (on a PT-6). The reason for that comment was in reagrds to an Otter pilot bailing out of the cockpit door during an in-flight emergancy. If the pilot is 'lucky' enough to have just the right type of failure on either engine, then one of the cockpit doors would be an option. Any other failure would have the props spinning and both of those doors looking like a bad idea. In all reality, it would take far more than an engine failure, even both engines failing, before an Otter pilot would abandon ship. It would take an airframe failure of some sort to get the pilot into freefall.

Keep in mind that these incidents are in no way related to the calender year. There is no reset button on 12/31 that wipes the slate clean, and gives some sort of 'fresh start'. Grouping them together by year is really just a way to catagorize them. Which brings me to my next point, unless you can pinpoint some sort of significant change in training, or procedures, there is no reason to believe that the average number of fatalities will change, or at least change to any significant degree from one year to the next. The worst part about a year with very few fatalities (or even two such years in a row), is the average re-asserting itself in the years to come. Maybe we can buck that trend by using these low numbers, and the fear of the numbers rebounding to maintain the average, as a motivator to really up our game in general. Maybe the low numbers themsleves will be the significant change that will spur everyone to be that much more vigilant in the coming years. Of course, maybe Bill Booth will prove to be right (again) and we'll just find new and more exciting ways to kill oursleves. That's the more likely outcome, but that previous thought was nice while it lasted. Cases in point - skydiving while in very poor health (with corrective surgery scheduled to boot), jumping a Stiletto with a wingsuit and possible opening at less than 2.5k, jumping in high and gusty winds with a .7 wingloading, and swooping a small Velo in gusty winds over buildings. Bill Booth wins again.

Maybe you should spend less time relaxing, and more time reading. Last line, post #1-

You are really over thinking the whole thing. The beer rules are a tradition of sorts, but by no means a requirement. You could easily substitute any sort of refreshment or even a food item of some kind if you want to carry on with 'tradition', or just bring nothing and watch nobody notice or really care one way or the other. I think the beer rules are related to the fact that many jumpers are young, male, and likely to drink beer, and the majority of skydiving is done on hot summer days. Again, hanging out is entirely up to you. If your life doesn't permit it, then so be it. If you have the time, give it a shot, however, keep in mind that the later you stay, the drunker people will get, and who knows what will happen after that. If you're not a drinker, then it might get old real quick. As far as staying the weekend, it's just a way to avoid having the long drive home, and not being able to hang out. Some people stay so they can party, and some stay so they don't have drive hours back and forth, and they get more time to jump. Some DZs have camping right on the DZ, and it's common to find a shower house somewhere on the DZ. Some people will sleep in the hanger, or on a couch in the office, or anywhere else they can manage, maybe even in their car. Nearby hotels are one option, and sometimes you can find another jumper who lives nearby who's willing to share a couch or an extra bed (or their own bed) with you. The basic deal with DZs are you pay your money, follow the BSRs, the DZ rules and FAA regs, and you're all set. Everything else is optional, and whatever you want to make of it. Feel free to do, or not do, whatever you want, and nobody will give you a hard time about any of it.

Don't try to overthink it. You're still just skydiving, and still flying on your belly. If you want to speed up your descent rate, arch harder. If you want to slow your descent rate, arch less. If you want to move forward (more forward than you're already moving), put your legs out. If you want to move 'less forawrd', bring your legs in a little. The majority of tracking dives are flown at far less than 'tracking' speed. They're flown at a more moderate forward speed so the flyers have 'recvoery'. If a tracking dive was flown at max track, nobody would ever be able to catch up to the base, or even move into a slot. For this reason, the dive should be flown at less than max track, so everyone has a chance to get in there, and manuver when they get there. When was the last time you were on an RW jump where everyone was arching as hard as they possibly could? You may find yourself on a 'max track' tracking dive, at which point you just made a bad choice. Soemtimes, if the group is all composed of highly experienced jumpers, the pace will be significantly higher. Those jumpers are able keep pace, and not make any mistakes that would knock them off the pace. The other time that happens is when the leader is a huge dickhead who's trying to prove how 'awesome' he is by flying too fast or too flat. In either case, if you find yourself on one of those dives, you're in the wrong place for 60 jumps. The nice thing about being on a fast tracking dive is that if you can't keep up, you get left behind in clear air, but none of that helps your learning or the 'fun factor'. Try to avoid trackign dives with those guys in the future. There are other tricks and techniques for tracking dives, but those will come with time and jumps as you find what works for your body type and flying style. For now, keep it simple and just use the belly flying techniques you learned in AFF.

Where do you jump? Aside from the Cessna's (and I think you mean 182/206), almost every jump pilot I've flown with hasn't worn a rig.

I sifted through that translated thread after I posted. It does say that, but it also goes on to say what tools the media are for getting the details so wrong, and that the guy did have a bailout rig, and jumped around 2k, recieving some sort of minor injuries upon landing. I'm not sure what they're talking about, but they also claim the CompAir has some sort of design flaw that makes a spin recovery impossible, but I'm not sure if that's true. An inverted spin may be a problem, as in this case, but it may also be 'pilot error' for not knowing how to recover from an inverted spin (I have no idea how to recover from an inverted spin. I've never flown an aircraft upside down, on purpose or otherwise). It also states that the plane was just completed that month. Some pilots seem to think that a new or overhauled engine is still 'on probation' for the first 20 hours, and if it makes it past that, it's probably OK. I would have to assume that there might be a similar time frame for a homebuilt, so being recently completed, you have to consider the possibility of a mechanical problem that either contributed to entering the spin, or prevented the recovery from the spin. In the end, everyone made it out alive, which is the important part, but how about that paint job? Would have been nice for that to hang around a little longer, huh?

That's not what happened, that's what was edited together for the show. The first two-way on the step left as the plane stalled. The video cuts to a camera inside the plane, ten seconds behind the camera on the step. You can see the guy in the door is the same guy from both cameras. It's just a poor time-line in the editing, not a case of jumpers sitting around doing nothing. If you notice from the inside video, as soon as the plane stalls, the jumpers are indeed pinned to the roof, and are probably working their way toward the door. I would also guess, based on the editing, that the other fun jumpers on board probably got out as well, but they didn't have a clear shot of those exits. As for the pilot, who knows? There are a bunch of pilots in larger jumpships (larger than a 182/206) who don't wear bailout rigs. I've never seen one on a Caravan pilot, how about a PAC, any of those guys wear a rig? If it is a Compair, it's a homebuilt similar in size to a PAC, can be powered by a piston or turbine engine, and I'm pretty sure they have pilot doors. Here's hoping he had a rig, and an easy time rolling out his door...

I've done 13 jumps in the same day, but that was AFTER I was a trained, licensed jumper. There will be many more than 3 loads flying on any one day, but the real question is how many of them will YOU be ready for. There is quite a bit of training and practice that goes into every jump, and that takes time and energy, and that's before you even board the plane. Once you do board the plane, making the jump is not just a formality, it's a test of your abilities, and you may not pass every jump. In that case, you have to repeat that jump, but only after additional corrective training. Some jumpers fail certain levels multiple times. Regardless if you pass or fail every level, there is also a mental component to the jumps. You have to feel 'ready' in your mind to make another, and how ready you will feel varies from person to person. Not passing a level will certainly have an effect on your frame of mind, but sometimes even the good jumps will take more out of you than you expect, and you may find that you need a rest. Even uncomfortable student rig, or a hard opening can really ruin your day, and suck the energy right out of you. Once you get through the first ten jumps or so, most of that goes away, but up unitl that point you never know how you'll react until you actually start jumping. This is why travelling somewhere to complete an AFF course can be a risky proposition. Even the weather can ruin a trip if you don't have enough time factored in for that. Two or three days of rain or wind will get you zero jumps per day. Unless you can devote a good two weeks to the DZ, you might be better off just spending your dollars on a local DZ, and paying jump by jump. If you can spend two weeks, and can travel on the cheap, give it a shot. Whatever they tell you the course will cost, bring twice that. This will cover re-jumps, and other unplanned costs (at the DZ). If you do finish in less than two weeks, now you have extra time and money to rack some jumps before you go.