BrianSGermain

The interview on Freeflying (Part I) is here: http://skydiveradio.com/show_files/sr33_03_21_06.mp3 = Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

Here is the link to the freefly show: http://skydiveradio.com/show_files/sr33_03_21_06.mp3 = Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

I would contact the folks at Holister. There are many jumpers that routinely ground launch in the San Fran/Monterey Bay area, and many of them jump at Adventure Center. Talk with Adam or Maaco = Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

I just did another show for Skydive Radio.com This time, the topic was "Freeflying". The show will air in a week or so. + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

Here are direct links to the interviews on Skydive Radio Show #14 “General Canopy Flight Dynamics” http://skydiveradio.com/show_files/sr14_11_08_05.mp3 Show #18 “High Performance Flight” http://skydiveradio.com/show_files/sr18_12_06_05.mp3 Show #27 “Emotional Factors in Aviation” http://skydiveradio.com/show_files/sr27_02_07_06.mp3 ENJOY! + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

Thank you. It's never too late. The sky awaits!!! + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

that should probably be reworded also. A little strong for you? The problem is, if this is not a regulation, many people will disregard the chart and do their own thing. The trouble with that approach is, many people don't know what's good for them. The only reason I survived the learning process was because they simply didn't build parachutes small enough to kill you back then... at least for the resonable, the unresaonable will find a way to eat it no matter what they are flying... \ How about "Must not downsize beyond this chart"? I agree. That is much better. I will present it to the Board that way... + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

DANGER!! An important issue that no one has brought up is the problem of traffic snarl and collisions due to everyone now deciding to do continuous turns when it is turbulent!! Good point. When I say "continuous turn" I do not mean in the same direction all the way to landing. That is called a spiral. I am talking about smooth carving, like a skier or snowboarder, back and forth, continuing in a general direction. Thanks for helping me clarify that... + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

The chart looks good. Sorry to say it but the rest is junk, the proposal reads like a requirement that makes it a BSR proposal in which the USPA would be foolish of adopted it as written. BSR’s do not happen over night, and I think we all know this, but with some rewriting, changes in wording and some additional verbiage added, we could easily see it added to Section-6 Advanced Progression. I will not be surprised while in Section-6 it is further reworked and joined with the canopy skill recommendation that exist now then added to the BSR’s with a system of verification in place. Junk, huh? Ouch... There are many countries around the globe that require skydivers to adhere to a downsizing progression. Most of them have MUCH better safety track record than the US, by the way. That says something. If you have ideas as to how to improve this chart and additional information section, please feel free to offer them. + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

No no no. That's not what this is for at all. Jumpers are more than welcome to jump a larger canopy than the Chart suggests. The point is to provide a general guide for what is appropriate at any given stage of development. Without guidelines, there is chaos...and that is bad for everyone... + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

that should probably be reworded also. A little strong for you? The problem is, if this is not a regulation, many people will disregard the chart and do their own thing. The trouble with that approach is, many people don't know what's good for them. The only reason I survived the learning process was because they simply didn't build parachutes small enough to kill you back then... at least for the resonable, the unresaonable will find a way to eat it no matter what they are flying... I flew a 190 until I had over 500 jumps. The big canopy didn't hold me back as far as I can tell... + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

Hi Yuri The key with such a situation is to carry lots of airspeed, line tension, and most importantly, CALM AWARENESS. You will need to be ready to stab your brakes at any time to bring your flight path back up to it's original trajectory. If you let the wing surge forward on the pitch axis and drop the angle of attack, you will soon be out of time and out of altitude, and will be forced to watch Oprah on the hospital TV. (I still think Oprah is the bomb, but I would rather be in the sky) It is a matter of quickly applying a little brake OR letting off the front riser(s). Either way you are increasing the angle of attack, which will begin to bring you out of the dive. You can't land with your wing in front of you, so recovering to the angle of attack that flies the correct curve for your final approach is essential for survival. Does that work for you? Bri + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

Although there clearly are some discrepencies in government testing standards, weight tends to decrease maneuvering speed because, as you said, inertia plays into the equation. Yes, the larger the mass, the less it wants to change direction. However, the larger the mass, the more force will be exerted on the vehicle itself when it is changed in flight path. The magnitude of positive and negative "g's" that an airplane can handle without risk of structural failure is, in essence proportional to the mass of the vehicle as a whole. You would think that a larger airplane would be able to handle more loading on the wings, and you would be correct. Nevertheless, the percentage of the overall mass is what is in question here, and this figure decreases with the mass of the vehicle. Size does matter. Small parachutes, for instance, experience less damage from opening than large ones. This is due in part to the fact that there is a larger amount of volume in the wing, and the increased amount of air moving in at opening time exerts a greater amount of force on the fabric. Further, the increased surface area collects more energy in the decelleration from terminal velocity, so the stresses on the fabric are greater. Yes, the force is distributed over a larger area, but the force localized on any given part of the fabric are still greater. So big parachutes tend to blow up with a much greater frequency. That is why tandems are so heavily reinforced. Likewise, forces do not scale in a linear fashion when it comes to the ability to handle weight on the airframe. Big things just don't like to change direction. They are slow to alter their path, but they also resist the change with great lethargy. Like a fat person trying to get off the couch, it requires a great amount of effort, and they are more likely to break a hip in trying to do so. Does that work for you? + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

That is an interesting brain-teaser. Yes, the loss of groundspeed is a lesser precent of the overall airspeed when you are flying faster. But the issue is not groundspeed at all when we are talking about turbulence. It is: 1) How long are you in the bad air (downdraft, updraft or choas) And: 2) Is the variance of the fluid going to effect the flight path? Number one is clear. The faster you are flying, the sooner you will pop out of the nasty stuff into clean air. The second issue, partially predicated on the first, is a more complex question that requires all of the relevant details. The example you presented is a helicopter, which is a very different set of dynamics. Not to say that helicopters do not suffer in turbulence, but the effects will be somewhat different, and I do not pretend to be an expert in that field. Actually, I do not pretend to know everthing about parachutes either. I just seem to be saddled with this responsibility of the "go-to" guy for this kind of question. So I will try... The flight path of a parachute is based on 1) Lift 2) Drag 3) Flying Environment The first two partner up to give us our efficiency, calculated by L/D resulting in glide ratio. The flying environment is a variable that includes vertical air movement (+ and -) as well as chaos which reduces the efficiency of the airfoil. If the flow of air over the wing is disrupted and becomes less "laminar", the drag will increase and the lift will decrease. Increasing the airspeed will increase both forces, Lift and Drag. This does not necessarily result in a linear correlation between the variables as they are altered by the conditions, but it stands to reason that the higher the airspeed, the less the percentage of the whole the loss of both figures will represent. If airplanes did not weigh as much, we might choose to increase the airspeed in bad air due to this assumption, but we do not. We slow down. This is beacuse of the limited ability of the airframe to handle the stress. If you increase the airspeed, you increase the forces on the aircraft as the loading on the wings varies positive and negative. This is why there is "maneuvering speed" on your airspeed indicator. If you fly too fast in turbulent air, your wings may fall off. That sucks... Parachutes are quite different. The mass of the suspended load is far less than an airplane, and parachutes are designed to handle quite a bit of stress for opening shock. This means that there is pretty much no chance of you flying so fast that the positive "g's" actually bust your parachute. Good thing. Not to mention, negative "g's" are not an issue at all, as all that does is release the line tension and collapse the parachute. Not good for descent rate, but you parachute will fare well from the encounter. This all suggestes that the first issue is the most important. Flying fast will keep you from lingering in the oatmeal air, and will super-pressurize the parachute to handle the hits. As far as we are concerned, the faster the better, as long as the maneuvers utilzed to create the airspeed maintain significant line tension to keep the skeleton of your system intact. OK, that was the most verbose answer I could have given. Sorry about that. On cold winter days, a little mental masterbation can be a good thing. Anybody got a towel? ;) Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

Can you explain this? Steady state is steady state - weight equals lift, exactly (no 'tiny bit' one way or the other). But maybe I'm not understanding some dynamic input you intuitively know about. In any case, I appreciate the advice about keeping a curve in your flight to add extra tension for bad air - keep the lines taught = holds the canopy shape (that's why the lines are cut to those lengths) = keeps the foil pressurized = less oddball trouble. That's different than busy/jerky hands, it must stay smooth. What is your opinion on the normally trained advice to newbies of "slight brakes" through turbulence? Is it just something that feels right but is technically wrong? Or does it depend on your platform? Canopy design and development must be greatly fun and satisfying. When we go with gravity without resistance, we sit at less than one "G". In the case of orbital dynamics, we are falling without resistance, and the "micro-gravity" environment feels like Zero-G's. Notice the feeling in the harness when you are under a big canopy versus a tiny one. You actually weigh a bit less on the smaller canopy. None of this matters, however, it is just an interesting point of discussion. As for training students to fly in brakes, I am against it. Especially under a huge parachute, we must maintain what little airspeed we have. This pressurizes the airfoil more and gives us the ability to spike the G's when we need the canopy to fly away from us to increase the line tension. When it comes to flying, airpseed is our friend. We need to teach students to do what we would do, or at least a more conservative version thereof... Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

Nice Snag!!! Yes, that was an error. All those numbers start to get blurry after a while... I will change it right away. Thank you!!! Brian Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

Slow speed doesn't make line tension less. In straight flight your line tensions must add up to your suspended weight. This is true. Your "G" loading in full flight is a tiny bit less than One G (because you are going with gravity). Nevertheless, I aim to fly at more than One G in turbulence. FLying in smooth, continuous turns allows me to fly faster than full flight, and increases my G Loading. I can increase my wingloading by adding a bit of brakes at the end of the turns to create a high speed positive carve. + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

In case you are interested, here is the link to the newest version of the Downsizing Recommendations that is being examined by the USPA as "Issue Number One" at the next Board Meeting in Phoenix. http://www.bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

Yes, I have tested the "stab theory" on many occasions. I would even go on to say that it is much more than a theory. I try not to post things that are just guess-work. As for not having experienced a collapse, nothing could be further from the truth. I have had countless bad ideas over the years. I have found myself under many parachutes that did not want to stay at the end of the lines, and I managed to land them safely. I do this by flying fast and staying away from inputs that would decrease my angle of attack or cause uncoordinated flight. Tight lines are the secret to stability, and the stab method or "Flex the System" as I call it in the course, seems to be the best way to momentarily increase your line tension to get you through bad air. I appreciate the question. There is a good deal of conjecture out there, and the only way to pick through the information is to find out what is based on empirical evidence through experimentation and what is coming from guessing. I design parachutes so I can find my way to the truth. Well designed experiments and conscious manipulation of one variable at a time is the best way to do that. I would not feel comfortable teaching anything I haven't tested fully. Further, you should not fully accept a new piece of information without testing it yourself. Pull high and play with your toy. There really is no better way to find the truth. + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

It is here: www.BrianGermain.com Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

Would you suggest application of the front riser on the side opposite the turn? Nope. Here's why: Front risers DECREASE the angle of attack on one side of the wing. What you need to do in order to recover from a collapse is INCREASE the angle of attack accross the entire span of the parachute, but in a manner asymetric enough to maintain your heading.. Front risering on the opposite side of the wing will bring the canopy forward in the window, and thus make the problem worse. You may exacerbate an asymetrical collapse into a full frontal collapse. You might stop the spin by doing this, but you may also increase your descent rate dramatically as you deflate the remaining cells. The best way to increase the angle of attack while efforting to stop the spin is to hit a toggle on the opposite side of the parachute. This pulls the wing back in the window quickly, and since the input is primarily YAW axis control, it helps coordinate the flight path. In other words, it is like stepping on the rudder pedal of an airplane in a spin. You align the fuselage with the relative wind, and therefore begin to regain control of the aircraft. Once you are aligned to the relative wind with respect to the YAW axis, you can increase the angle of attack of the wing to pull out of the dive by adding collective brake pressure. Besides, toggles are already in your hands, while front (or rear) riser application requires a separate step. You don't have much time in a collapse situation, so applying the correct input quickly is essential. Practice this up high, as often as possible. If you are ready for this kind of thing, you may even want to fly in the turbulent air behind another canopy to try to induce a collapse at high altitude. This way the unpleasant feeling of momentarily loosing control over your wing will not freak you out so much if it happens down low. Panic is the enemy. Calm, decisive input is the solution. + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

Knowledge counters Gravity!!! + Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

There are many variables to consider when looking into a canopy collapse: 1) What was the pilot doing? 2) How fast was the canopy flying when it collapsed? 3) Where was the pilot flying? 4) What is the canopy design? 5) What is the wing-loading? 6) Was there any re-active solution employed? These are the principle considerations, but not the only ones. I will take each one separately. 1) The way in which a parachute is flown can increase or decrease the "G" loading on the lines. A rapid release of one or both brakes significantly increases the chances that the canopy will collapse. This allows the parachute to surge forward to a lower angle of attack, decreasing the lift of the parachute. This reduces the amount of energy exerted by the parachute away from the suspended load, allowing the "negative" portion of the lift to take over and allow the wing to fly towards the jumper. 2) Airspeed is what creates lift. Lift is what causes the wing to strive to fly up and away from the jumper. This is the formula for line tension and therefore stability. The slower you are flying, the more likely your parachute will collapse due to low internal pressure and low line tension. 3) Was the wing flying in clean air when the collapse occurred? This is an important part of the question. All parachutes can collapse in "bad" air. We must always fly considering the invisible dangers that the sky presents us. If you wouldn't fly a kite there, don't fly or land your parachute there. 4) Certain parachute designs do better in turbulence than others. I must avoid pointing fingers here, as this is a volatile industry that can be taken down by non-skydiving lawyers. Nevertheless, certain wings have an increased propensity to go "negative" when presented with adverse condition, while others bump around a bit and keep on flying. This is a complex issue, and the best way to decide which parachute to buy and fly is to listen to the actual statistics, and to your own experience when flying a particular design. I have not experienced any kind of collapse on the parachutes I fly, ever. If you have on yours, you may want to reconsider what is over your head. 5) Parachutes perform differently at different wingloadings. The lighter the wingloading, the slow it will fly. This means that the internal pressurization of the wing will be less on larger canopies. In general, lightly loaded parachutes experience more small collapses than heavily loaded ones. Not only is there less internal pressure in the wing, but the dynamic forces area also less with decreased airspeed. This means that the average line tension tends to be less on a lightly loaded wing, and the wing tends to have a increased propensity to surge forward in the window when flying at low airspeeds. This is why very small, highly loaded parachutes tend to experience fewer distortions, especially when flown at high speed. Flying at high speed increases the drag of the canopy itself, relative to the jumper, so the relative wind holds the parachute back in the window and at a higher angle of attack. This is why I make carving, high “G”, high speed turns to final approach heading, especially in turbulence. The speed actually reduced the chances of a collapse by increasing the forces that keep the parachute at the end of the lines. I am literally increasing my wingloading by flying fast and at high “G’s”, and the increases velocity reduces the amount of time that I fly in bad air. I am not saying that you should downsize just to increase your stability. I am saying that until your skills and knowledge are ready to fly smaller, faster parachutes, you should stay out of the sky until the winds come down. I still haven’t been hurt by a jump I didn’t do. 6) If you are flying a good design with lots of airspeed and significant line tension, and in a reasonable location that has no obvious precursors for collapse, you can only deal with a collapse in a re-active manner, as you have addressed all of the relevant variables up to this point. This is all about "Pitch Control". If your wing tries to aggressively surge forward in the window, you must notice it and quickly stab the brakes to bring it to the back of the window. A collapse always begins by a surge to a low angle of attack, but there is very little time to deal with the problem before I folds under. Here are the signs: a) The first sign is a change in Pitch. The wing moves forward in the window. This is the limited flying space over your head. Too far forward and it collapses. Too far back and it stalls. b) The "G" loading drops dramatically and almost instantly. In other words, your apparent weight in teh harness drops because the wing is producing less lift. This is the time to jerk on your brakes: quickly, sharply, but not more than about 50% of the total control stroke. This action is to pull the wing back in the window, not to stall the parachute. By putting the wing further back in the window, we are increasing the angle of attack. This increases the lift, and forces the wing to fly away from the suspended load and thereby increase the line tension. This can prevent a collapse entirely, or cause the wing to recover to stable flight before things get really out of control. If the wing is allowed to collapse, it may recover quickly on its own. This is why the more modern airfoils have the fat point (Center of Lift) so far forward. It causes the wing to pitch nose-up when it begins to fly again, bringing it back to the end of the lines. Nevertheless, parachutes can still collapse fully, which often involves significant loss of altitude and possibly a loss of heading. If your wing goes into a spin because of a collapse, your job is to stop the turn first, as you increase the angle of attack. If it is spinning, there is less chance of recovery until the flight path is coordinated and the heading stable. Conclusions: 1) Don't fly an unstable parachute. If it is prone to collapse, ground the parachute. Do not sell it to an unsuspecting jumper at another drop zone. These people are your brothers and sisters. 2) Don't fly in crappy air. Land in wide open spaces, in light winds, and never directly behind another canopy. 3) Practice stabbing your brakes in response to forward surges on the pitch axis. This must become a "learned instinct" that requires no thought at all. Like pulling emergency handles, pulling the wing to the back of the window when the lines get slack is essential for safe skydiving. 4) Keep flying the parachute. If your parachute does something funny near the ground, don't give up. If you keep your eyes on YOUR ORIGINAL HEADING, you will unconsciously do things that will aid your stability and keep you from getting hurt. Looking toward what you don't want is how you make it occur. I hope this little article helps you understand the phenomenon of collapses a bit better. I know as well as anyone how painful a collapse can be. I do not want to go back to that wheelchair, and I don't want anyone else to have to experience that either. You morons are my family, and if information can help protect you, I will give it until my lungs are out of air. Blue Skies, Sky People. + Bri Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

There are many variables to consider when looking into a canopy collapse: 1) What was the pilot doing? 2) How fast was the canopy flying when it collapsed? 3) Where was the pilot flying? 4) What is the canopy design? 5) What is the wing-loading? 6) Was there any re-active solution employed? These are the principle considerations, but not the only ones. I will take each one separately. 1) The way in which a parachute is flown can increase or decrease the "G" loading on the lines. A rapid release of one or both brakes significantly increases the chances that the canopy will collapse. This allows the parachute to surge forward to a lower angle of attack, decreasing the lift of the parachute. This reduces the amount of energy exerted by the parachute away from the suspended load, allowing the "negative" portion of the lift to take over and allow the wing to fly towards the jumper. 2) Airspeed is what creates lift. Lift is what causes the wing to strive to fly up and away from the jumper. This is the formula for line tension and therefore stability. The slower you are flying, the more likely your parachute will collapse due to low internal pressure and low line tension. 3) Was the wing flying in clean air when the collapse occurred? This is an important part of the question. All parachutes can collapse in "bad" air. We must always fly considering the invisible dangers that the sky presents us. If you wouldn't fly a kite there, don't fly or land your parachute there. 4) Certain parachute designs do better in turbulence than others. I must avoid pointing fingers here, as this is a volatile industry that can be taken down by non-skydiving lawyers. Nevertheless, certain wings have an increased propensity to go "negative" when presented with adverse condition, while others bump around a bit and keep on flying. This is a complex issue, and the best way to decide which parachute to buy and fly is to listen to the actual statistics, and to your own experience when flying a particular design. I have not experienced any kind of collapse on the parachutes I fly, ever. If you have on yours, you may want to reconsider what is over your head. 5) Parachutes perform differently at different wingloadings. The lighter the wingloading, the slow it will fly. This means that the internal pressurization of the wing will be less on larger canopies. In general, lightly loaded parachutes experience more small collapses than heavily loaded ones. Not only is there less internal pressure in the wing, but the dynamic forces area also less with decreased airspeed. This means that the average line tension tends to be less on a lightly loaded wing, and the wing tends to have a increased propensity to surge forward in the window when flying at low airspeeds. This is why very small, highly loaded parachutes tend to experience fewer distortions, especially when flown at high speed. Flying at high speed increases the drag of the canopy itself, relative to the jumper, so the relative wind holds the parachute back in the window and at a higher angle of attack. This is why I make carving, high “G”, high speed turns to final approach heading, especially in turbulence. The speed actually reduced the chances of a collapse by increasing the forces that keep the parachute at the end of the lines. I am literally increasing my wingloading by flying fast and at high “G’s”, and the increases velocity reduces the amount of time that I fly in bad air. I am not saying that you should downsize just to increase your stability. I am saying that until your skills and knowledge are ready to fly smaller, faster parachutes, you should stay out of the sky until the winds come down. I still haven’t been hurt by a jump I didn’t do. 6) If you are flying a good design with lots of airspeed and significant line tension, and in a reasonable location that has no obvious precursors for collapse, you can only deal with a collapse in a re-active manner, as you have addressed all of the relevant variables up to this point. This is all about "Pitch Control". If your wing tries to aggressively surge forward in the window, you must notice it and quickly stab the brakes to bring it to the back of the window. A collapse always begins by a surge to a low angle of attack, but there is very little time to deal with the problem before I folds under. Here are the signs: a) The first sign is a change in Pitch. The wing moves forward in the window. This is the limited flying space over your head. Too far forward and it collapses. Too far back and it stalls. b) The "G" loading drops dramatically and almost instantly. In other words, your apparent weight in teh harness drops because the wing is producing less lift. This is the time to jerk on your brakes: quickly, sharply, but not more than about 50% of the total control stroke. This action is to pull the wing back in the window, not to stall the parachute. By putting the wing further back in the window, we are increasing the angle of attack. This increases the lift, and forces the wing to fly away from the suspended load and thereby increase the line tension. This can prevent a collapse entirely, or cause the wing to recover to stable flight before things get really out of control. If the wing is allowed to collapse, it may recover quickly on its own. This is why the more modern airfoils have the fat point (Center of Lift) so far forward. It causes the wing to pitch nose-up when it begins to fly again, bringing it back to the end of the lines. Nevertheless, parachutes can still collapse fully, which often involves significant loss of altitude and possibly a loss of heading. If your wing goes into a spin because of a collapse, your job is to stop the turn first, as you increase the angle of attack. If it is spinning, there is less chance of recovery until the flight path is coordinated and the heading stable. Conclusions: 1) Don't fly an unstable parachute. If it is prone to collapse, ground the parachute. Do not sell it to an unsuspecting jumper at another drop zone. These people are your brothers and sisters. 2) Don't fly in crappy air. Land in wide open spaces, in light winds, and never directly behind another canopy. 3) Practice stabbing your brakes in response to forward surges on the pitch axis. This must become a "learned instinct" that requires no thought at all. Like pulling emergency handles, pulling the wing to the back of the window when the lines get slack is essential for safe skydiving. 4) Keep flying the parachute. If your parachute does something funny near the ground, don't give up. If you keep your eyes on YOUR ORIGINAL HEADING, you will unconsciously do things that will aid your stability and keep you from getting hurt. Looking toward what you don't want is how you make it occur. I hope this little article helps you understand the phenomenon of collapses a bit better. I know as well as anyone how painful a collapse can be. I do not want to go back to that wheelchair, and I don't want anyone else to have to experience that either. You morons are my family, and if information can help protect you, I wil give it until my lung are out of air. Blue Skies, Sky People. + Bri Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com