chuckakers

I understand mistakes happen. My question was specifically about the statement made by the manufacturer that makes it sound like not everything is physically inspected and that's hard to believe. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Wait a minute. Are we to assume by the above statement that there are components that are NOT physically inspected as a matter of routine? If there is someone in the manufacturing world following this thread, please address this. Given the nature of the product, I assumed - hopefully correctly - that EVERY component on EVERY parachute system built by EVERY manufacturer is physically inspected. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Might want to mention that unless he's 7+ feet tall he will have trouble flying with other people. I've known several heavier guys that started jumping that were really turned off after spending the time and money to learn and then learning that. I think it's important for people to understand the challenges they will face before making the investment. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Depending on the size of your rigs they may both fit into an airline regulation carry-on. Try stacking them facing each other with the yokes at opposite ends of the bag and all the straps tucked down the sides. Unless the rigs are big that can work. Of course if the airline places a weight restriction you may be screwed there. Last time I flew in Europe I got surprised with a weight limit that I had never heard of in the states. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So if you I go on a slow day they will fire up a plane just for me? There's no day so slow that Spaceland isn't flying. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

423-949-9499 - call and ask to speak DIRECTLY to George Galloway. Explain that previous correspondence has gone unanswered. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Educate me. Why does having 10 year old software matter? Does something happen to software over time? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

1, 2, and 3 - there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these containers. Like all rigs, some specific rigs (typically identified by serial numbers and/or DOM) may have had issues, but like all (US) rigs, if there were issues the manufacturer (presumably) addressed them. Nearly every new model rig has had voluntary or mandatory call backs to work out tweaks. Like it or not, we the consumers are usually the drop test dummies after rigs hit the market and pretty much remain the dummies as we report issues across the life of the gear. 4 - without clarification, that is an unsubstantiated statement. If the "come apart" reference refers to tuck tab riser covers on early models, yes they did. That can be fixed, of course. 5 - I would take a properly loaded, F-111 PD 9-cell with low jump numbers as a first rig anytime, especially for people who trained on similar mains. Properly loaded they fly and land just fine and are a great value for someone seeking lower performance on a budget. I would stay away from high jump number units simply because of the performance degradation rate, but for someone that wants a low cost starter with plans to upgrade, there are some safe, good deals out there. 6 - tell that to all the very satisfied Spectre and Storm owners. The point behind my rebuttal is that "good gear" vs "bad gear" is not something to be generalized. To hear some people tell it, only the very latest technology is acceptable, yet I have numerous friends who jump very old gear that is in great shape and in some cases in much better shape than some folks' newer gear. It isn't about new or old, or one brand/model vs another. It's about airworthiness and fitting the gear to the purpose. I would have no problem giving the nod to a new jumper who wants to buy a lightly loaded PD F-111 9 cell with 50 jumps on it packed into any of the above listed containers that have undergone any required servicing and mods. Same with reserves. If it's legal, airworthy, and appropriately sized I see no issue. Newbies, avoid the gear snobs. Consult a trusted rigger and find gear that serves your budget and purpose. It's doesn't have to be the latest and greatest. It has to be safe. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The cowboy in the saddle has to decide whether to ride. Good call. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I used to wonder why my chest strap fuzzed up prematurely until I was educated that my rubber band retainer was causing it. I switched to elastic keepers and the problem was solved. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I think you are being short-sighted. I agree that there are people with high jump numbers that are not good LO's and some may even be dangerous, but there's a lot more to good, safe organizing than deciding on a dive flow and knowing how gear works. Good organizing involves understanding a lot of nuances in mechanics, jumper skill sets, group potential and limitations, and an infinite number of variables that take a long time to learn and understand well enough to incorporate in a real-world situation. Little things can make differences in safety and results. Jumpers with minimal exposure to the environment simply can't have developed that understanding since much of it is learned through observation and trial and error - and that takes time and jumps. I'm not saying that a person with 100 jumps can't safely design skydives and lead groups of appropriate skill, but to be a load organizer for a drop zone is a different creature. Those LO's are required to take on jumpers they often don't know well (or at all) and must safely integrate them into the group. LO's must know how to assess skill, attitude, and aptitude, and quickly make adjustments to accommodate the group as a whole. They must know the skydive and skydivers from the boarding area to the packing area and be able to monitor every jumper every moment, looking for safety issues while also analyzing each person's performance along the way. People with minimal jumps and time in the sport simply haven't developed those skills. I head up the LO's at a big DZ and we are never done learning and teaching. I do have LO's with only a few hundred hops, but they have been formally trained as LO's and are restricted to working with groups that are manageable for their LO skill sets, and coaching with them - and myself - is ongoing. Remember, a mistake on the part of the LO - as you mentioned - can come with deadly consequences. I for one wouldn't want to trust a kid fresh out of the crate to make the right calls. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

OH DANG! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

As nutty as the OP's post is it did make me think of something. What if a wingsuit was designed with small, rigid or semi-rigid wings added to the top of the arms, legs, or wherever they would work best? Think of it as a biplane of sorts. The skydiver wears the bottom wing (the suit), and the top wing is attached to it. Either that or design a suit with two fabric wings, top and bottom. More lift, longer flights. Sounds crazy but so did wingsuits until they were perfected. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

For clarification, I believe the seat belt FAR already existed when the Perris incident occurred but belts were not used in practice at most DZ's. FWIW, I believe we will revisit better restraints again someday. Unfortunately it will likely not happen until after another high-profile incident. Let's face it, most aircraft restraint set-ups are not effective. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So maybe a simple repositioning of the anchor point would help. I've noticed the same thing in many aircraft and thought if the anchor point was aft of the jumper position and the belt was snugged up it would do a much better job of minimizing movement in a crash. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

As I understand it Sandy re-worked the design until he liked it. My wife has the first generation magnetic covers on her rig and likes them just fine. They work as advertised but Sandy wasn't happy with the aesthetics and wanted to perfect them (typically Sandy Reid perfectionist thing). He offered to exchange my wife's for no charge but since she was happy with them she declined the offer. Personally I don't see any aesthetic issues with the early design, but I would like to see the current version to see what the difference is. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Just when I thought these people couldn't get any more ridiculous. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Don't we all. LOVE your attitude! Staying safe is all about balancing knowledge, skill, and judgment. Sounds like you have it. Keep it up! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Have you completed a canopy course? How 'bout a course with a focus on performance flight? Your profile indicates you have about 150 jumps. If that's correct you are in a danger zone and would only go deeper by downsizing or moving to an elliptical. My advice is to stay where you are and seek coaching and guidance from a top-shelf performance piloting coach before doing anything. Not the hottest swooper you know, but a true professional that does it for a living. If you want to swoop like a pro get educated by one. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That depends on you. A 170 would give you a wing loading of .97:1 while a 150 would put you at 1.1:1. That is very little difference and considered moderately light for most people. You should always step down a single canopy size at a time, but if you can fly a 170 between now and December, a 150 at your wing loading would be quite reasonable assuming your skills are in order. Personally I do not advocate downsizing for the sake of downsizing, but having sufficient forward speed and performance is important and even necessary if you jump where winds are consistently brisk. My best advice is to get with a trusted instructor or senior jumper at your local drop zone that knows your abilities and local conditions. Folks that have seen your progression are in the best position to help. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Well played. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Time. It's the only absolutely quantifiable way to insure proper separation. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

A step through like that should have been painfully obvious during the packing process. Reconsider your packing service options. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

For the record, deployment altitudes and piloting technique also play a role. If the lady was deploying significantly lower than you and/or planning on flying more aggressively, having her leave first would make sense. Of course I have no idea if either was the case, but it's important to consider all the variables. And yes, the 45 degree rule is absurd. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX