TomAiello

To simplify, what if it was a Balloon jump? Then the aircraft would be stationary. Umm, to come clean, the real scenario I'm facing is a cliff at 11,000 ft exit elevation. Will the parachute still open at the same speeds I've experienced closer to sea level? --Tom Aiello tbaiello@mac.com

Does that mean that with equal fall velocities, the canopy will open at the same speed at high and low altitudes? Picture a go and throw deployment at sea level compared to the same deployment at 5500'. Will both canopies open in the same distance? --Tom Aiello tbaiello@mac.com

> by the same logic a head-down opening without a suit would work better than flat'n'stable I'm not sure that's true. The logic would seem to imply that the canopy would inflate at a negative angle of attack equal to the head down pitch of the jumpers body--an on-heading toward the ground, not forward. Another idea: The canopy effectively begins to open behind you (due to it's angle of deployment). During inflation, your body weight/momentum pull the canopy forward. This has an effect similar to kiting the canopy forward (i.e. it turns to match the direction of pull--or flight). What would happen if you laid the canopy out (cocooned) at line stretch behind you, then somehow began running forward at 80 mph? I'd guess the canopy would inflate on heading, since you were pulling it in that direction. Even if the canopy started inflating off-heading, the force on it would pull it into an on-heading. I bet this would even happen if you laid the canopy out sideways or backward. Another weird thought: If this reasoning is accurate, vented canopies might have different wingsuit opening characteristics than unvented canopies. Unfortunately, I've pretty much exclusively jumped a Vtec FOX with the suit. Have you noticed any difference between vented and unvented canopies? I think that the received wisdom has always been that deploying directly from max track yields better heading--with a wingsuit I'd expect it to be more so. Maybe the data to analyze the situation exists if we could pull together numbers on non-suit max track deployments as well. One other interesting thing. McConkeys appear to have a better opening heading rate than standard deployments. Could this be a related phenomenon? My "body momentum force" hypothesis ought to apply (to a lesser degree) to McConkey deployments as well. BTW, as far as the original post, I skydive a Stiletto 135, loaded at about 1.5, and haven't had any problems since about jump number 10 on the suit (when I lengthened my bridle and switched my PC pack job from a half moon to a burrito). --Tom Aiello tbaiello@mac.com

Relative Wind? Especially for you, I bet the relative headwind from your flight overcomes the relative upward wind from your fall rate by a significant margin, and becomes the dominant factor in determining opening heading. What are your fall rate and forward speed? --Tom Aiello tbaiello@mac.com

It's not just skydivers talking about BASE. It's also BASE jumpers talking about each other... "...when you condemn someone else's decisions based on your own decision making criteria, you are engaged in classic "whuffo-ism". "What fo' ya jumpin' fo'?" quickly becomes "What fo' ya BASE jumpin' fo'?" which quickly becomes "What fo' ya free falling under 200 feet fo'?" or "What fo' ya pulling low fo'?"...." We had a short discussion about this a while back in another on-line forum (http://www.blincmagazine.com/forum/board/3754.html) that you might find entertaining.

Ideally, I'd like to see them supporting BASE--specifically with lobbying efforts to legalize sites in U.S. National Parks. Things the USPA could do would include: 1) Helping lobby efforts to legalize sites in U.S. National Parks. 2) Allowing BASE related letters, articles and advertisements to be printed in Parachutist (censorship is currently absolute). 3) Including an index of BASE training schools with their DZ index. This would point skydivers who are prospective BASE jumpers toward quality, safe instruction. One of our biggest problems is skydivers with no experience and no training (who probably don't know where to get either) getting hurt. Currently, many skydivers are unaware that training programs exist, and hence learn to jump from their buddies. Imagine thinking it was ok for your friend with 25 jumps to take you skydiving. That happens in BASE all the time. 4) Referring BASE related questions to someone with the expertise to answer them. If someone calls USPA headquarters with a question about hang gliding, I bet they get referred to USHGA. Know what happened when I wanted to get into BASE and called them with that question? Even though some of these things would take very little effort or expense (allowing BASE ads might actually help Parachutist's bottom line), I doubt the USPA will ever support BASE. We have been around that block many, many times. The least I'd like to see is an open declaration that they don't do that, don't know about it, and don't claim to govern it. It looks really bad for us when an organization claiming to oversee sport parachuting labels us as an unapproved activity. It'd be a bit like if AOPA claimed responsibility for all civilian air traffic of any kind, then labelling parachuting as an unapproved activity ( "Nope, we don't do that--that's crazy. Sure, go ahead and ban it, we're the experts on it, and we're telling you it's crazy" ) . Sorry for sounding so angry. I'm just a bit tired of the USPA--and I'm still paying them dues. --Tom Aiello tbaiello@mac.com

The USPA needs to change it's name. The United States PARACHUTE Association, by naming itself that, and by actively excluding my branch of parachuting, greatly HARMS our efforts to gain legitimacy and recognition from policy makers. --Tom Aiello tbaiello@mac.com BASE 579