davelepka

Chasing a main is fine for a handful of jumpers, but I'd wouldn't reccomend it for most. If a jumper takes a look straight down after their reserve opens, they can use that info get a good idea of where the main will be. Most jumpers have little no experience flying their reserve canopies, or any 7 cell canopy for that matter. If they can make it the DZ, that's where they should go. That's where they planned to land, and they should stick to the plan. If they can't make it, the alternate LZ should be selected for being the safest choice, and not it's proximity to the main. Again, it's good for some people, but for most just making a safe landing should job #1.

I disagree. I don't think that was close to CFIT (controllled flight into terrain), that actually was CFIT. Just becuase they didn't crash as a result, contact was made and I think this qualifies, and should be reported as, CFIT. It was about as close as you can get to dying in a plane for sure. If you think about it, if they were still pacing that jet, or just trying to get to the desert to meet up with the jet, they had to be doing 150 or 160 knots. One more thing to think about, where was that jet when the pilot made the avoidance manuver? Imagine that one, barely miss the mountain, only to collide with the L-39. What a jackass. I wonder if the pilot has his IFR ticket. I almost hope he didn't so he would have an excuse for this. If he did have his ticket, there's no excuse, and he should lose it for sure.

Actually it is a safety issue, so just add that to the list of reasons not to downsize. A smaller canopy is certainly less safe than a larger one. A smaller canopy will give you less time under canopy to deal with traffic, or to locate and set-up for a safe landing area. A smaller canopy will also respond to inputs more quickly and to a greater degree than a larger one. A smaller canopy will penetrate into winds better and handle turbulence better than a larger one, but only to a small degree. Making the choice to jump in those conditions is a short coming on the part of the jumper, not the canopy. Additionally, it's never a good idea to donwsize more than one size at a time. If you are currently jumping a 190, then a 170 would be your next logical choice. A 150 is considered to be the crossover point in to a 'high perofmance' canopy, so skipping a size to downsize into a 150 is an epsecially bad idea. You never have to downsize if that's what you want. It's your money, and your skydive, do with it as you see fit.

Jump whatever you want, and whatever makes you feel confident udner canopy. The last thing you need if you are landing off, or in challenging conditions is to be worried about being able to handle your canopy. In terms of rig size, I would challenge any jumper to make a jump with a rig one size bigger than they are used to, and really be able to tell a difference. Between a 150 or a 170 you're looking at one rig, or the one size up, and you will never be able to tell the difference in the air. If you want to be able to downize later, without buying a new rig, look in to a used 170 and have the rig sized for a tight 170. The used canopy will be easier to pack, and when you downsize to a 150, the rig will be even easier to pack.

This may be true, but this type of advice needs to be given carefully. Case in point is the post directly above this one. That guy is still a student with 5 jumps. He reads this, and thinks that surely this is the way to go because by all means the last thing you want is a PC hesitation on your reserve. Howvever, I would suggest that this is the wrong impression to give newer jumpers. First of all, it introduces another 'step' to the reserve deployment process. We've all heard about the guys who take the time to 'get stable' after a cutaway, and sometimes they burn a lot of altitude in the process. Now imagine that they then have to set themselves up head high before pulling silver. Even jumpers with an RSL, in the case of an RSL failure, or a total mal on the main, in both cases they will be in freefall needing to pull silver. The other problem is that, much like pulling a left side chest-mounted ripcord, most jumpers have no experience adjusting their pitch attitude before or during the pull sequence. Is this really the time to be 'experimenting' with a new procedure? The real answer is this - respect your hard deck, and in doing so you will give yourself plenty of altitude for a cutaway and reserve deployment, including a PC hesitation, all before your AAD starts paying attention. In the event of a PC hesitation, the correct procedure is to look over one shoulder as if you were looking at a PC in tow. When you twist your body to make this check, it will allow the wind to flow across your back and catch the PC. Maintain your arch through the entire process. Every incident where a PC hesitation has been suspect as factor involved a very low reserve deployment, or an AAD fire (which in itself is a very low reserve deployment). In all of those cases, if the reserve pull was initiated at a higher altitude, a PC hesitation would have been a non-issue. If you feel like pulling head high is important to you, then you need to practice this skill during your main canopy deployment for a good number of jumps before attempting it on a reserve pull. You should probably do it enough times that you screw it up at least once, and manage to string together a good number of successful attempts. Making a mistake in this area is a very serious problem. If you back loop your self into your deploying reserve/PC/freebag, you will be creating far more problems than you think you are solving. Respect your hard deck, and deploy the canopy you intend to land at a high enough altitude to allow for deployment, and for you to make a safe landing.

The first thing you should do is check the line trim. The microline on your canopy actually shrinks over time, and when the lines shrink at different rates it effects the way your canopy flies and opens. You can get a line trim chart from PD, and if they're too far off, you may want to get a reline. Contrary to popular belief, not every Sabre opened hard, and when the lines are in trim, more of them opened nicely than not. A reline is probably $225-ish. Another thing you can do is get a bigger slider. If you add a couple of inches to the chord (front to back) measurement of your slider, that should help to slow down the openings. A new slider is about $100. The best bet is to get a reline, and upsize the slider at the same time. However, if you really want to fix it cheap, you can have your steering lines adjusted. The first thing to do is determine the correct overall length for your steering lines- Under canopy, brakes unstowed and toggles all the way up, you should see slack in your steering lines. There should be enough that the wind blows is back, and the line is bowed in that direction. You should be able to stall the canopy, but only when your toggles are all the way down, and you hold them there for a few seconds. If there is no slack, or you cannot stall your canopy, then add or subtract to the lower steering line as needed. Once you have the overall length, have your rigger build you new steering lines from the cascade down. Have him place the fingertrap (where you stow your brakes) 2 inches lower then it was. The overall length should remain the same, but the fingertrap is now lower down the line. This will ease up on the brake setting during deployment, and slow the opening. Costs will vary from rigger to rigger, but the whoel deal should be under $50. I have done all of the above seperately and together on a Sabre 135, 107, and Stiletto 107 (twice). They all work pretty well, and should all be done under the supervision of a rigger.

I agree 100%. My comment was in regards to fact that their potential Queen Air pilot had little experience flying jumpers. While later on in the flight there are skills unique to flying jumpers, take off is no different than flying non-jumpers. If this pilot was a good twin pilot with time in a Queen Air, than no having jump experience is no that big of a deal. Anyone who can safely fly a Queen Air can probably keep the thing upright during jumprun. Likewise, a pilot with 1000 hours flying jumpers in a 182, and a fresh twin endorsement with 3 take offs and landings in a Queen Air would not be my first choice.

Knowing how to fly jumpers isn't important at take-off. On jumprun it helps, but you just need a guy with flight time, a twin rating, and some time in a Queen Air. The airport makes a big difference. If you're jumping from a grass strip just barely long enough for the Queen Air, that's not good. If you have a solid surface runway that's long enough, the pilot can just keep it on the ground long enough to build some extra speed before lift off. Of course the field elevation, and the air temp also makes a difference. Maybe think about not putting in as many jumers as the plane will hold. Cut the load size by a slot or two, and that will help to build some additional safety margin.

I don't know the guy, but there have been quite a few reports of scams as of late, and I have a suggestion for everyone. Get your head out of your ass and.....(just kidding). Here's what I did when I bought my Velo - I had the seller ship it directly to PD, where I paid for it to be inspected. This made sure that the canopy was for real, and that I knew the condition based on the opinion of the manufacturer. The seller can feel good because he sent it to PD for an inspection. They would only return it to the seller unless he told them otherwise. Once the inspection was complete, an e-mail to PD explained that there was a pendign sale, and that it would be shipped to me on the sellers approval. Once he had the payment in hand, he cleared the canopy to leave PD and I had it a few days later. It cost me a few bucks for the inspection, but most people would have to pay a rigger to do this anyway. I also had to pay another leg of shipping to get it to PD, but that was a small amount. It's not a perfect, fool proof system, but if a seller actually has the gear, in as-advertised condition, I would be surpirsed if they would go to the trouble to ship it to a manufacturer for an inspection only to collect the money and have the item shipped back to them. If you're buying a complete rig, say a Javelin, I would guess that if you shipped it to Sunpath the rigger who inspects the container could also have a look at the canopies. They would have to unpack it inspect it anyway. Granted, you're going to pay for this, but it worth it.

It's a piston twin, which is another way of saying 'high maintenence'. The problem is that with a twin, if you lose an engine on takeoff, two problems can occur. The first is the plan could roll over on it's back. Most piston twins will lift off at a speed below what one engine can handle. If you lose an engine, and the other is at full take-off power, having all that thrust off the center line of the ariplane can cause it to roll over. Once you gain 10 or 15 knots, you have enough airspeed to keep the thing upright if you lose an engine. The other problem is that many piston twins have very poor performance with one engine. If you lose one on take off, and don't roll the thing, theer's a chance you may not be able to climb very well (if at all). If the pilot keeps trying to fly the plane, and go around the pattern to get back to the runway, you can stall and crash. These are things that twin pilots train for, but in an energency you find out who the good pilots are, and who's in over their head. The lower priced twins typically have less powerful engines, and have to be flown that much more carefully. In a single engine plane when you lose the engine, all you can do is put it down. The twin gives you options, and some of them suck.

You're thinking of the single engined V-tail Bonanza. There was nothing wrong with the plane either, the problem was that every rich doctor just had to have the signature V-tail. There were quire a few incidents with those planes that were linked to low time pilots or uncurrent pilots (like doctors with more money than hours of flight time, or time to spend in the airplane). The Twin Bonanza makes an OK jumpship. I've got about 1000 jumps out of a supercharged D50. It would take ten jumpers to 13k in about 15 minutes. It had a small door, but 4 or 5 floaters could climb up on the wing. Jumprun speed was high, and it was loud as shit. Like any 40 or 50 year old piston twin with a retractable gear, you can use it for jumping if you have an above average pilot and an above average mechanic.

Without clicking on it, it has to be the scene with the two squirrels, one guy squirrel and one chick flying squirrel. I've seen that clip many times in the previews when I take my kids to the movies. In one of the other Ice Age movies, the same guy squirrel falls off another giant cliff, and ends up doing RW with his stash of acorns that fell of the cliff with him. There's got to be a skydiver somewhere working on those movies.

First off, none of those things are 'new' to Nationals. Every previous host offered all of those things as part of their hosting the event. The DZ I jump at has two bathrooms, two showers, and not the greatest bunkhouse that sleeps 6. As such, we did not bid for Nationals because we don't have the facilities to house the event. If you are going to place a bid, that's an indication that you will be ready and able to provide the facilities needed to run the meet when the time comes. The real problem with your list is that all of those things are capital improvements to the DZ, and will remain in place and benefiting the DZ for years to come. Spaceland's ability to host future meets, boggies, and big-way events has increased significantly. They already had the lift capacity to host those events, and now the facilities match. Remind me again how this represents new and unique amenities or services that benefitted the competitors? I'm still interested in what the trade-off was for giving up the right to bring personal sponsorship to the meet. What was the upside of that deal for the competitors?

You say this, but your profile says you jump a Sabre2 170, and the begining of this thread mentioned something about a ZP 155. Which is it? Before you answer, keep in mind that if you say you've jumped them all, that's not a step in your favor. To have 26 jumps, and jumped all of those canopies, plus the 200+ sq ft student canopies you jumped on your first handful of jumps, it shows that you have very little time under any one canopy. As such your metric for what you can, and cannot, handle is going to be very limited. I'd more inclined to believe that you have a very small number of jumps on a 150. I'm also willing to bet that on every one of them, the canopy was first and foremost in your mind, and that you were probably trying to be 'careful'. None of which gives you an accurate picture of what it's like to jump the canopy for an extended period of time. And you make this very confident sounding statement based on what? For various reasons, a 150 is generally considered to be the crossover to a 'high performance' canopy, regardless of the WL. As you downsize further, the differences and performance increase between sizes grows considerably. You are playing a very dangerous game just thinking that 'you'll be fine'. You would also be fine on a more conservative wing, and you would be fine with a higher degree of certainty. It if far easier than you think to break a leg or two when jumping a 150sq ft or smaller canopy. It doesn't really require that big of a mistake or error in judgement to result in an impact speed of 30mph or greater, which is sufficient to significant damage on soft ground, much worse in a parking lot or on a runway. Reconsider your solution to this problem. If you already bought the container, that means it's a marketable rig, and you can sell it just like the last guy did. Learn to seperate the forest from the trees. The canopy is not too big, the rig is too small.

I would like to consider this, but so far I have not heard what sort of new and unique amenities or services the competitors recieved this year over previous years. You see, hosting the same competition as last year would have been acceptable. If all other things were equal, nobody could reasonably expect any sort of new or unique amenities or services as compared to previous years. However, in this case all things did not remain equal. The DZ did step in and use it's 'home field advantage' to place limitations on the competitors sponsorships in order to increase the value of sponsorship the DZ was offering. So now that the DZ clearly has an advantage over past years host DZs, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that they would be providing new and unique amenities and services. As I mentioned earlier, I still have not heard what these new features were. I understand your point about business and competition in the market place, and all that jazz, but you're missing a key point. Sapceland, in this instance is not operating in the free market. They are hosting an event for an outside entity, in this case the USPA. The USPA holds this meet for the purpose of giving it's dues paying memebers a forum in which to gather and display their skills. For the host DZ to do anything to limit the participation or enjoyment of those members represents a deriliction of duty. If you're going to bid to host the Nationals, you have to understand that for that week it's not your sandbox anymore. You're sharing the sandbox, and you have to consider everyone on the playground when making decisions. After Nationals, have it and fuck over anyone you want. Just for the record, I've been to Spaceland and I think it's a great DZ (this was years ago, and I hear it's even better now) and everyone there from the jumpers to the staff and management were as nice as can be. I don't agree with the call they made in this case, but they are nice folks.

Try typing 'Navajo' into the search box in the upper right hand corner. There's five pages of results, and only a handful are from this thread. You should be able to find at least one or two DZs that have run Navajos as jumpships, and they would be the ones to aks for details on jump ops.

Those people could say the same thing about you. The fact is that several Skyvans have had engines let go in spectacular fashion. You could argue that those planes were old, and the maintenece was probably sub-par, but every Otter in skydiving is also old, and the maintenece issue on the Skyvans is just speculation. Granted the new generation of Honeywell engines may be great performers, but I'm going to bet the every single one of them is in 'corporate duty' flying people or cargo on scheduled runs. Much more of their time beign spent in cruise at altitude as compare to climbing or descending. Also, I got the vibe from that article that the operators they surveyed were all professional operators who probably have a regular maintenence program, or fly under 135 where they have to have a program in place. The truth is that the Pratt engines are the ones that have proven themselves in jumpships for many years. You can't just ignore that track record, and the trust that it builds among jumpers. The Honeywell may be a great engine, but only time will tell if it's great for skydiving. It's like this - when you want a video camera to jump with, Sony is the only choice. Every other brand has VERY high failure rate in freefall, while the Sonys seems be almost indestructable. That's not to say that a Cannon, or a JVC isn't a good camera for filming things in the ground, and they might even be better then a Sony for that job. But for right now, if you're taking a camera into freefall, take a Sony.

No joke, but if your grip gives you trouble packing, how does that effect your ability to pull handles, risers or toggles? As far as this 'tool' goes, I think the guy made this thing to solve all of his packing problems, and he's about to find out that nobody else has these problems. Especially not for $90.

For a 150, it seems like the top and bottom skins are 150 sq ft each, and the ribs and end panels are probably more than 150 sq ft., maybe 175? So add in seam allowance, and overage for laying out the patterns and such, so maybe 550 sq ft? 600? I'm willing to bet Brian Germain knows the answer.

Nothing has cahnged that much in 20 years. The jumpsuits look different, and the rigs are a little nicer, but freefall skydiving instruction is the same as it ever was. You can't train people not to react to freefall. It called 'fight or flight' and it's a response built deep into our brains that kicks when our lives are threatened (like after leaving a plane for the first time). No advancement in ground school or 'information' is going to change that. What a student knows the morning of their FJC is not a factor because the FJC should cover everything they need to know to make their first jump. No matter how well you teach them, or what 'tools' you use, youre still taking them into the unknown when you leave the plane. This is what's it's really all about. If we had really advanced all that far, why do we still need AFF Is? Why don't we train the stupid right out of them, so they can just do it right the first time, and send them out solo? It's because you can't train the stupid out of people, at least not all of the people all of the time. So you need a back up plan, and it's the AFF I. Your job as the AFF I is to save the day. Lots of jumpers could handle an average or better student. Some students make the job so easy they almost could go solo on jump one. You are there for the other times. Those times, and what needs to be done hasn't changed much, and never will. Flying is flying, and your fancy rig, or carbon fibre helmet doen't change any of that. From exit to a having a good canopy is where you earn your keep. Everything beyond that is open to negotiation. The student can't nail the dive flow on the ground? Take a break, and try again later. The student is confused about hand signals in the plane? Attempt to retrain, mayeb take a go around, mayeb ride the plane down and try again next load. The student doesn't reposnd to the radio? They do have an open canopy, there's a good chance they'll be fine. But if anything goes wrong between exit and opening, that's when it's time to make the donuts. There is no stopping to retrain, no going back, and no surviving unless something happens, and you are there to make something happen. You tell your students that they are responsible for opening their parachute, but you know in the back of your mind that this guy will have a PC out above 3500ft. There's no way that this guy in the ProTec is going to get the better of you. Don't fool yourself into thinking that this will ever change. All of the training and all of the gear will change other parts of the experience, but freefall is always going to be the same, and what people do in freefall will always be the same, and good portion of it will be stupid. You're there to clean up the stupid, just like the guys did 20 years ago. I'm not whining about the 'good old days'. I'm making a valid point. The rating system is different, and it is easier to get a rating. The job at hand is the same, the people doing that job are not. These are not opinions, these are facts. The USPA literally said, "The AFFJMCC is too hard, and not enough people are passing. Less and less are even trying, and we're going to run out of instructors sooner or later. We need to make it easier to get a higher pass rate, and up the attendence". At some point in time sombody drew a line in the sand and said, "This is the standard for becoming an AFF I". Nobody can say for sure if that line was too far up the beach or not, but the line was moved to a lot closer to the middle of the bell curve. Was it placed too far off center in the first place? I don't know. Was it moved too far toward the middle? I don't know. Should it be moved even futher toward the center? Maybe, I can't say for sure. Nobody knows these things for sure, but we do know that it used to be one way, and now it's another way, and the new way sure looks a lot easier to me.

I don't know about you, but I'd say that anyone even approaching 254 is a 'big guy'. Either way, I would imagine that in a high speed mal such as a hard pull, there's a fair chance the guy was 'less than' stable, and possibly head low on deployment. Pulling a left side chest-moutned ripcord handle at terminal is not something many jumpers have trained for. Most jumpers today have never pulled any sort of chest moutned ripcord period. As such, instability and going head low are common occurences when pulling chest mounted ripcords, and both of those lead to 'firmer' openings. On the plus side, it typically breaks the burble, and helps the spring loaded PC get a clean launch. It is a VERY good idea for all jumper to do some practice reserve ripcord touches in freefall. You should be able to place a hand over your reserve ripcord handle, and remian in a stable, level position.

Why shoud the course be easier when the job you're being rated to do is the same? There are no 'new style' students who are guatanteed to perform any better once they leave the plane. Right after 'up, down, go' everything is the same as it's always been. If you actually believe that the course materials and techniques were kept a secret, then you are sadly mistaken. Wanting to get an AFF rating, before your course began, was the same 20 years ago as it is today. You were expected to train for wekks/months/years before showing up. If you expressed an interest in getting a rating at your home DZ, the staff would coach you, and jump with you, and do whatever they could to help you achieve your goal. When you were ready, the course evaluators would hold a pre-course the week before the actual course. During this time, you would jump with the actual evaluators, and they would debrief you just like you were in the course. You would learn what i took to pass, and they would help you to meet those expectations. It was not a 'secret society' where you were ambushed with the unexpected the moment you walked in the door. It was very similar to the cirrent course, with all of the opportunities to prepare available to you. The main difference was that the standard for passing was higher. Like always, the old course produced it's share of meatballs. Not everyone was a hero, but the new course is producing more meatballs, and they seem to be meatier than ever. Good for pasta, bad for AFF. One more time, thsi doesn't mean that all of the new crop of AFF Is are meatballs. Some are very good, and would have been in the top of their class had they taken the course 10 years ago.

That's not really a fair comparison becuase the product of those new editors is different than the product you put out 20 years ago. If a 'new' editor, with all of their technical advantages was putting out the same product as you were 20 years ago, they certainly wouldn't be winning any awards. Just as the state of the art has improved, so have the expectations of the final product. In AFF terms, the product remains the same. Students are the same as they ever were, and are apt to do the same stupid shit as they used to. No amount of refining the ground school is going to change the fact that you're taking a human being, capable of making errors and being 'human', into a frightening, high stress situation. In the end (or in the air) today's AFF I needs to be as good as one from 20 years ago. Again, I want to stress that this isn't a slam against all AFF I rated under the new system, Everyone with a rating completed all the tasks required of them at the time they earned a rating. Some of them are excellent instructors, who would have passed any course they took, but there is a percentage that would not have passed the old-style course. The math is undeniable - look at the pass rate of the old course, and compare it to the pass rate of the new course. The difference between the two (for the most part) are all of the instructors who never would have passed the old course.

Just to be clear, you did not (or will not) earn a rating just like the instructors who earned their rating through the old-style course. They earned their rating by passing a much harder course then you had to (or will have to) pass. This is not to say that you would not have also passed the old-style course as well, but the fact is that you earned your rating in a much different way than the old-school guys.

Just wondering, how many times have come screaming out of a perfectly executed 270? My guess would be not that many if you really think that a 90 will come close to that speed. Even after doing it 1000 times, I still occasionally roll out of a 450 flat out shocked at how fast I'm going. You talk about canopy terminal velocity, but you're ignoring the fact that angle of attack (on a gravity powered wing) will effect what that velocity is. Terminal velocity is when gravity equals drag, and acceleration becomes zero. In freefall, we all know that terminal on your belly is only a fraction of what it is on your head. You reduce the drag when you transition to your head, and give gravity a leg up in the equation. End result - more speed. Take this to canopy flight, and you'll see the same thing. In any turn (or dive) your weight moves out from under the wing, and allows changes in pitch and roll. In a slow turn, you limit the distance your weight will travel under the wing, and in turn you limit the overall change in pitch or roll. If a slow turn will allow you to pitch the canopy 3 degrees nose down, and you hold that pitch angle (like with a slow turn) you will accelerate to the terminal velocity of a canopy pitched 3 degrees nose down. If you initiate a faster turn, maybe you can pitch the nose down 6 degrees. If you hold that turn long enough, you will accelerate to the terminal velocity for a canopy pitched 6 degrees nose down. The further down you can pitch the nose, the less drag you will have relative to gravity, and the higher the terminal velocity of the canopy will be. You are correct that you need time to allow the canopy to reach terminal, whcih is why swoopers do multi-rotation turns from 800+ ft. Beyond all that technical mumbo jumbo, how about this - You start your turn at 500 ft, and it takes 4 to 6 seconds to get to the ground. So your speed is 100ft per second (this is just an example). I start a turn at 1000ft, and it also takes me 4 to 6 seconds to complete. My speed is 200 ft per second. Who is going faster?