murps2000

If a person gets hit on the road, it’s more his/her fault for stepping onto a busy road. *** Not in California. But that is one of the things I miss about the east. People push baby carriages out in the streets with legal impunity here. Point being, if it's not what the law says, it may not matter who was at fault from a common sense standpoint. What I tried to point out earlier is that no clear FAR exists regarding a parachutist vs. aircraft collision, at least as far as right of way is concerned, and it will be interesting to see if it is perceived by the powers that be that new regs need to be made. It sounds like many drop zones take into careful consideration the air traffic situation around their landing areas, which is good, but for whatever reason things didn't work out in Deland. People are right to express concern and disdain for knee-jerk reaction to this incident, but it was highly visible. So was 9-11, and IMO, the TSA strip searching old ladies & Al Gore at the airport was knee-jerk reaction to that. It fails common sense, but it still happened. Unfortunately, sometimes thats how regs end up on the books.

At least during jump run there is a measure of air traffic control. Under canopy (and in freefall, for that matter), as many have stated, it appears that see and avoid is the rule. Pure VFR. As you and others have also asserted, this is a very rare occurence, but as with many skydiving incidents, close calls are sometimes never reported. I had one myself over United Parachute Club back in '99. I never saw that silver Cessna till he was pulling away in a left hand turn about 200 meters away. I'm sure glad he saw me. Have you ever pulled high on an otter load and tried to spot every canopy below you? It's not that easy, particularly if it's a canopy with a dark topskin. I imagine that it has to be difficult for pilots, as well. See and avoid was the rule in 1972 when a PSA 727 hit a Cessna and crashed while on approach to Lindbergh Field in San Diego. In the NTSB ruling on the incident, ultimately the 727 pilot was deemed responsible. But one of the board members dissented stating that the see and avoid protocol which was standard at the time was at least contributory. In my mind I see a bit of a parallel, but I'm not sure of a viable solution in this case. I have a feeling, however, that simply stating that this is so rare that nothing should be done may not be good enough. As I said, I'm quite curious what the FAA's take on this will be.

I think changing anything would be over reacting. There are what, 15 million skydives in a year? 15 million instances of little planes(parachutes) landing in the same airspace as the larger planes. And this is the first instance of a canopy->plane collision we've had for as long anyone can remember. So out of maybe 100 million - 150 million parachute landings we have this one instance of a collision. While Gus' accident is certainly tragic, it shouldn't overshadow that having parachutes operating in the vicinity of other planes has been historically very safe for all involved parties under our current guidelines and rules. While your point is valid from the standpoint of common sense, this incident appears to be highly visible, at least for the time being. Overreaction may very well occur. I know a skydiver who works for the FAA, and he has stated that his superiors have expressed concern over the close proximity of parachute landing areas to runways at many airports. According to him, the FAA has heard complaints from airport managers regarding canopies and air traffic before. I expect he is hearing an earfull from his boss this morning. No advisory circular or FAR exists which states how far away from runways a landing area needs to be. In fact the only reference I have found is AC 90-66A, which is dated 8/26/93, and doesn't directly address it. It contains one paragraph that I see as pertaining to this incident: "When a drop zone has been established on an airport, parachutists are expected to land within the drop zone. At airports that have not established drop zones, parachutists should avoid landing on runways, taxiways, aprons, and their associated safety areas. Pilots and parachutists should both be aware of the limited flight performane of parachutes, and take steps to avoid any potential conflicts between aircraft and parachute operations." In addition, appendix 3, which is attached to this AC, gives the impression that parachutists could be scattered all around the airport during operations, and that potential conflicts could occur. This appendix is dated, and it is innaccurate in that it doesn't take into account the effect winds have on opening points (i.e. the spot), or the fact that parachutists open in a rough line as determined by jump run. As far as right of way, common sense would seem to dictate that parachutists should have it over powered aircraft. In Far 91.113, however, which addresses right of way, parachutists are not mentioned in the pecking order. I'm sure the FAA will investigate this incident, and it will be very interesting to see what conclusions they come to.

yes, it opened hard - sometimes. I moved on the the (made in Spain) VX and all is well...so the dome slider is a pain in the ass to stow? why don't you like it? *** Well, in my case, my FX was an early Precision built, and it started slamming me repeatedly. But another thing I didn't like was the brake settings. They were maybe 1/4 brakes or something, which would still mean a fairly high descent rate and forward speed after opening. The dome slider for mine (a 110) was huge; it was 28 x 22 inches at the grommet centerlines. It helped the openings, but they were still weird. It would feel like the initial snatch that jerked me feet to earth was rather abrupt, but then the slider would inflate and settle the canopy down. After canopy inflation, it would then come down and begin flapping madly because of the minimal brake setting determined by the cat's eye location on the lower set. So, after opening at 2500', I could never seem to catch the thing and get it collapsed and stowed without losing at least 1000' of altitude before unstowing my brakes. I think most would agree that you'd want them unstowed a little higher than that in the interest of safety. I discussed the problem with someone fairly knowledgeable about such things, was told that the construction of a new set of modified brake lines would cure the problem, and that afterward I could put my old slider back on. The modification was simply adding three inches to the two most inboard lines of the cascades, and moving the cat's eye up the lines 6 inches. The results were unbelieveable. I have the old slider back on and the canopy has not slammed me in the last hundred jumps since I had the modified lines installed. In fact, as I've stated, it is now the best opening canopy I've ever owned. And now that the brakes are set deeper, after opening it takes no more than 500' of altitude to get my housework done. As somewhat of a disclaimer, however, I have to add that, although this worked remarkably for my canopy, I cannot advise anyone else experiencing the same problems on how to modify their brake lines to deal with them, particularly if they have a different size FX. I have no idea how Icarus has modified the line sets on FX's over the years, or what effect a similar mod might have to another canopy. But I will say that the effect the mod had on my canopy did illustrate quite clearly to me that the dome slider is a band-aid, and does not address the actual flaw in design. In my case it turned out to be a waste of about $150.

So you get hard openings that were created overseas? I had an FX build by Precision - I did NOT want my VX to be made by them. Like I said, my VX (from Spain) opens nice - no complaints. Two teammates with Velocities do some complaining about their openings. *** Did you have brutal openings on your Precision built FX? I did on mine, and I wouldn't have believed the steering line mod that I got would have fixed it, but it did. Now it's the best opening canopy I've ever owned, without the dome slider, which is a cumbersome, band-aid fix. Try collapsing a tandem slider on an FX almost in full flight, while trying to avoid traffic at 2500'. I also think the X-mod is a waste of money. Why put almost $500 into a canopy that you might be able to sell for $800 in decent condition?

You still have time to edit your post to say CLIT COMMANDER!

Curious. Are you familiar with what exactly they were doing to violate grant assurances? Were they requiring excessive insurance, or just trying to ban skydiving there?

I'm a cunnilinguist. I'm fluent in both vaginese and vagitarian.

I'm sure this is about as detailed a reply as you can give without a great deal more effort than it's worth, so I'll accept that. I'll admit, however, that am a bit perplexed at the allusion to the manifestation of a higher L/D ratio due to the tensioning of the canopy at extreme wing loadings, particularly in light of the fact that you state that the results of such tensioning are more negative than positive in conventional designs (as one might intuitively expect). Perhaps I'll be lucky enough have an opportunity to explore that some other time. Regardless, I'll never know as much as I want to know about canopies so the point is probably moot. Thanks for the reply.

I'm very interested in the results and conclusions of your test, and perhaps Brian himself may correct me on this, but I doubt it was the same one that was relayed to me. First, I'm certain that at no time during the entire weekend of the course I took last year was a Cobalt mentioned (at least to me). Second, just to be clear, the deductions weren't mine, but were given as explanation. Third, although this is the only thing that I'm not absolutely sure about, it was my impression that this was a drop test, and involved no pilot. After reading Brian's post above, however, it makes me think that that alone would affect glide ratio. This statement I find quite intriguing, and a further example of how radically different a canopy is from the rigid wing of an aircraft. I realize you're trying to be brief, but you are saying that the increased tension at that loading actually reduces spanwise distortion? That is another result that I imagine would have been unexpected. I envy the designers their opportunities to make these discoveries. Would that imply, then, that under a dynamic load, say, an increase in loading as a result of a recovery from a turn, that a canopy at such a high loading would actually be more efficient?

Fear is Inversely Proportional to Intelligence: In Other Words: “Fear makes us Stupid”*** I know you watched the movies; you even quote Anthony Hopkins from "The Edge" in your last book. Remember Frank Herbert's "DUNE"? "Fear is the mind killer" -- Paul Atreides

...so my question is i am wanting to get my first jump suit and rig and helmet, the problem is that I am a mad lime green, black and orange nut. *** There's a guy at Skdive Orange who jumps lime green and black gear.

I first met Terry at C-burg and I've made a few jumps with him, but I've seen him at every other DZ you're probably thinking of and a few more. Last I saw him was in '03 at C-burg again, and I got that SOB's lighter and two cigarettes. I thought to myself "Ah, sweet sweet revenge!" A blow was struck for all those poor bastards that had to go around bumming matches because of him. But my girlfriend didn't know him, so while I was obviously taking great revelry in my feeling of poetic justice, she felt bad and went and ratted me out. She actually felt SORRY for him. This was obviously due to her ignorance of his bic-thieving past. So he shook me down and I had to give the lighter back up (I'd already smoked his cigarettes). But she had no idea the treachery he was capable of. You know, he left C-burg in '98, and it was maybe a year or two later that he sent back two boxes of used up lighters just to rub them in our faces. Oh, that wicked man....

Ahh, 4:20, the 8th anniversary of my first jump*** Yup, 4-20-97. Just think, if the weather had been better that saturday, it would've been 4-19. Guess things happen for a reason.

You forgot to include womens underwear in the poll.

However, I'm a former east coast jumper. The person on the far right looks like an east coast guy named Terry Crowe (I'm not sure if it is spelled correctly) that was an instructor/S&TA at X-Keys when it first opened back in 1994(ish). Terry has been skydiving for a long time in many places and this may be a picture from his younger days. Terry is a former Navy Seal. Great guy and great safe skydiver. That's my guess. *** Damn, that does look like Terry, doesn't it? One way to find out would be to ask anyone else in the picture if they got their lighter stolen that day.

I'm sure many of the engineers will chime in, and I won't try to debate them and their figures. It's an excercise in futility. I can tell you that when I went to Brian Germain's seminar last year, I tried to pick his brains about these very subjects, and what he told me was very interesting, and not what I expected. I would urge you to try and contact him to get the straight answers you want. There's too much to explain here. I will say that what you may know about rigid airfoils cannot accurately translate directly to canopies. There are far more variables involved. An example of this that I can provide is a story Brian told us that I'll never forget. He said that he was once among some designers that were drop testing a stiletto 120 with about 500 lbs. suspended load. They wanted to see what would happen with it loaded over 4:1. He said it didn't do what they expected in that the glide ratio actually improved. What they deduced was that the canopy, loaded as it was, finally was flying fast enough to achieve laminar flow. That is, a smooth boundary layer of air was attached to the top of the wing, nose to tail, increasing the efficency of the wing. I was surprised to learn that normally loaded canopies didn't achieve this. I figured it was essential to flight. But he said that in normal flight modes they don't.(Maybe Luis Cani's does, now) Now most engineers will tell you that a flight vehicle's glide ratio will remain constant regardless of it weight. I don't dispute this with regard to rigid wing aircraft, but with canopies, it may not be so. Many people will tell you that recovery arc is solely a function of a canopy's line trim, but it is also affected by line length, and wing loading. Brian told us it is also affected by how much drag your jumpsuit produces. Some will point out that front riser pressure is determined by how far forward or aft the center of lift is on the canopy, but it can be affected by something as subtle as changing the trim between the A & B lines (which has the effect of "skewing" the cascade points froward or aft). This can affect stability, as well. Go Big Air's website and contact Brian, I'm sure he can provide you with the insight you seek.

I was taught in the Strong tandem course that when jumping a rig you haven't jumped before, one of the things to check is the little flaps that cover the drogue release mechanism. They have velcro on them, but it is supposed to configured a certain way. If the "hook" peice of velcro is facing outward, it is correct. If it is facing inward (i.e. toward the three ring), it has been installed incorrectly, and can actually catch the nylon loop (both ends) on the three ring and hold it with sufficient force as to prevent release. It is a rare occurrence, to be sure, but my TE led me to believe that it has happened before. It is also something, that if wasn't known about, might be easy to overlook upon examining the gear.

Did the TM have to use the reserve, or did the drogue eventually release?

Locust Grove, GA. Skydive Green County. Jumper committing suicide tracked toward the pit and overshot. He then turned around and tried again but hit about 10 feet shy and bounced over the pit. He left a perfect delta crater. We would go out to it from time to time and have a safety meeting dontcha know. The crater was often refurbished by foot skuffing and some rock salt. The DZ dawg got the tasty treat of the deceased's brain matter. circa 1980-ish?*** I heard about this years ago, and always wanted to believe it was true. So "Brain-eater" the dog was real...

legal rights with regard to whom? Potential plaintiffs? The FAA?

: "I don't know your wing loading, canopy design, etc., etc., but others just reading this, and thinking this for themselves who could be under higher loaded elipticals for instance, need to be aware that there ARE indeed possible greater risks, and/or consequences if this is practiced inappropriately (or without either understanding and instruction)." __________________________________________________ Amen to that! I have a Vengeance (airlocked) and it does NOT delflate in a stall...it simply goes backwards. If, during recovery the toggles are not raised slowly, and evenly it will surge forward (read below you) and spin like a rotor! I have no video, but I can show you my underwear with the big bite taken out of the seat! *** The jumper in the referenced 1998 incident was also jumping an airlocked eliptical. Several people on the airport that day considered it to be a contributing factor. It was an aggressive stall, too.

I have seen people messing with the upper break lines to change the length. That is bad news! It will change the opening characteristic of the canopy.*** It does change the opening charcteristics of the canopy, but not neccesarily for the worse. It, along with another mod at the cascades, dramatically improved the openings of my FX. I was lucky to get good advice from a designer regarding the adjustment, and so I am in agreement with you that people shouldn't just make experiments with upper control line lengths. It could make things worse, as well. They should absolutely consult a designer or test pilot first, and not someone else just because they are a rigger or sales rep. Even then, the advice may not be good. As I said, I was lucky.

I'm curious why showers seem to be involved in the skydiving experience. Do you get dirty up there, or is it from bugs sticking to you? Haha please forgive my ignorance. *** Their really there for washing of beer & pie or other messy baked goods.

And I would enjoy taking your money!!!!!!! Cuz I still have a couple of brand new un-touched still in the bag ones stashed away. *** Care to part with one? I've been satisfied with mine for many years, at least once I found a rigger who could neatly pack it. The pop-top never comes loose between pack jobs, and it's fun to shoot the reserve PC across the room every 120 days. Also, I've yet to find a newer rig with a main PC pouch that I like better. About a thousand jumps on mine and it's still as tight as day one (spandex sucks). I'll take some extra freebags, too, if you've got them.