pchapman

The part about flying prone, or using hands and feet and not just hands to control the canopy, that is possible. Don't know if it is needed, but one could certainly rig things up for more or different control inputs, whether to "brakes" or "front risers" or other variations. The part about gaining altitude though, sorry, that's not going to work out as far as the energy balance goes. That's where it gets into fantasy not engineering. Humans don't really have the power to keep an aircraft aloft -- unless it is say a slow, 30+:1 glide ratio ultra-efficient long span very lightweight glider, powered preferably by an athlete. Those are the kind of things that very clever teams have made fly. A 6:1 glide ratio paraglider isn't going to cut it.... (Eg, we humans can put out, what, 0.25 hp for a good bit of time if really fit? Strap a 0.25 hp electric motor with an efficient prop to your back while paragliding... and you aren't going to go up in still air.)

For uploading one has to click the Browse button first to find the file on one's computer, then do Upload attachment. Have to do it one by one on this site. Some interesting stuff there. I"m not familiar with them all but just to tally up the pics: - a 1943 24' Switlik sewn canopy (bailout or belly reserve) - camo paratroop parachute from '51 by Fashion Frocks [It's amusing to see the military stuff sewn by ladies' wear companies] - some white canopy with double L mods and a few slots too (which will be one of the others seen in closeup) - something white from '57 - some white Navy backpack canopy from '51 Some interesting old odds and ends. I guess people go to eBay these days, but letting skydivers have a crack at it first sounds good too. The super long deployment bag, if it is like 15 ft long, that would likely be a sleeve for say a 60's ParaCommander or similar. (I've never jumped any canopy older than 1957, a 26' Navy.... but a 24' flat or whatever is a bit on the scary side.)

Good point. Sunpath only started in the late '80s (according to Poynter) and even that '90 rig looks like it has tuck tabs for the risers. Still, a large photo of a Javelin in my 1990-1991 Para-Gear catalogue shows riser covers with stitch lines and shaping that strongly suggest velcro on the riser covers. (Phew!) So maybe only a very small number had velcro in the earlierst days?? [Edit: And in that Para-Gear the Jav was priced 13% less than the industry leading Vector II, a whole $788 (for a square reserve), which using the US consumer price index from 1990 to today equals under $1500. For a somewhat simpler rig.]

I'm curious - When all the work was done on the container, did it have any freefly friendly mods made? I think a '90 Javelin would still have the non-tuck-in reserve pin cover flap, velcro riser covers, and lack a bridle cover. While such older features are still accepted (and useful in certain roles), people are more and more expecting any rig for normal use to have standard freefly friendly components. A new harness is great, but old safety features also reduces the value. Gowler's point is good - it is more sellable with a decent but older reserve.

Ok, looks like most of their stuff is regular skydiving helmets, but the TonFly Ice in particular is their multi sport one, certified to: "European standard EN1077: 2007-American standard SSTM F2040-11 for SKIING and SNOWBOARDING and European standard EN966: 2012 + A1: 2012, category HPG for AIRBORNE SPORTS."

Holy crap. I just looked at the current Mirage manual. (EDIT: I checked, the manual of 4-2016 is still current) While the text is all in line with what I'm used to for a Mirage G4 for years and years, there are a few pictures where the pilot chute fabric spreads all over and covers the whole bag -- even while the flaps are being closed. So yes, a newbie rigger could see that and end up with pilot chute fabric right out to the corners of the freebag, following the manual!! Then when the flaps are closed and everything tightened down, edges of fabric become trapped. I have to say, those pictures in the manual are pretty weird ... and dangerous looking. EDIT: The 'old manual' that was around since the early 2000's or so, it had pictures that weren't as big or clear. The pilot chute fabric also ballooned out away from the PC cap a lot there, but there was just one photo like that, before side flaps closed, and it didn't seem to cover the whole freebag. Thus the photos weren't nearly as deceptive in luring someone to pack pilot chute fabric to corners. EDIT 2: The 2016 manual, one of the pics: [inline G4.jpg]

You're not overdramatizing things. That's one crazy, scary pack job. Definite total. Who knows, might might well have come loose in the air if one struggled and elbowed the container or rolled onto one's back to expose it to air. If one had a bunch of spare time... Even if someone packed it without every having seen a Mirage manual, it shouldn't have packed like that, as a basic principle of rigging is that pilot chute fabric doesn't get so far away from the pilot chute that it jams between flaps and bag. Maybe there's some senior rigger in the area who could be trusted to help deal with this? (I mean senior in the sense of knowledgeable & respected, not FAA Senior vs Master.) That is if you're not sure about wanting to confront the rigger. While there might be some explanation why your rig is the only one like this, the packing appears so bizarre that (without further info), one would want all rigs packed by the rigger examined...

In hang-gliding and paragliding, companies like Charly and Icaro have full face helmets that are certified to EN 966, the European HG/PG standard, and use polystyrene liners to achieve that. Their aerodynamic shape tends to be for airflow coming from infront of the face however. Icaro has one version they promote for skydiving, but it is a bit odd (with a zip up neck dam). I have no idea if any skydivers over in Europe (where PG is more common) use any such helmets...

There's also a difference between steady state flight with fronts pulled down, and what happens when suddenly pulling fronts down. When you suddenly pull down, the canopy hasn't yet had time to change its flight path and angle of attack to get to some new equilibrium. I've had 'bad' canopies where a sharp pull on a front riser gets it close to zero force, which means near zero lift on the associated part of the canopy, which means the nose is close to getting to zero effective angle of attack and folding under. This isn't what happens in practice on double fronts in typical situations on typical canopies, but shows the extremes. If one can move the front of the airfoil down too much too suddenly, one is just reducing the angle of attack. Combined with a turbulence induced change of angle of attack, yes one can get closer to having the canopy nose fold. While the limits tend to be unknown, I tend to stay away from sudden big canopy inputs towards some aerodynamic limit, when in potential turbulence.

And for the Vigil 2+ .... I had to look this up... things are somewhat better: No return to the factory unless it was more than 6 ft under water, or under water over 24 hours. So only really serious dunkings cause a problem. (In case of salt water exposure, there's some extra rinsing and drying to be done.)

PD manual: Nice catch. I checked and the wording is the same in the 2002 version, so it isn't new. Now, who actually follows that rule? Factory swoop teams included? I suppose people could argue that a reserve that was under water a short time and partially protected by the rig, such as in a swoop pond landing, did not actually 'completely submerge' the reserve. That argument may or may not hold water, figuratively speaking.

There have also been updates to the book over time, right? It has been a long time since I compared versions, so I don't recall details.

The main reason is that you don't want to buy a whole new rig to get one. (Edit: Many existing rigs without one, can't have it retrofitted. A small proportion can.) If you are buying a brand new rig, then it is an easy choice to have it included, since most but not all brands have them available, and at a reasonable price. That's the 'general' reason why one might not choose to have a MARD. As for specific jumps and disciplines, that's another matter.

I have long wondered about that, as some people really like skate shoes for skydiving. I'm used to the shock absorption of running shoes -- for moving around in general -- so when I tried some DC skate shoes for swooping I was disappointed. Nice flat soles, sure, but I put in good quality inserts to get at least a little shock absorption on harder ground. Individual preferences...

Certainly your concern about two cutters depends on whether one thinks the chance of a problem is near zero or not. Twice near zero is still near zero. I still would take a trip to Arizona or Nevada, even though my chance of getting the often deadly hantavirus might go up five or ten times compared to Ontario. Still, it is near enough to zero that I'll travel. Or, heck, your chance of having a fatal freefall collision perhaps triples if you do a 4-way instead of a 2-way. But if one picks the right partners and jump, most of us do dare to do more than 2-ways. Those issues of cutters and loops were not randomly distrubuted. Nobody says "oh, that can happen to any AAD". These were specific incidences with: (a) An AAD which at the time did not have 100% xray verification of cutters for a second line of defence while it does now (Vigil). While another major brand always had verification (Cypres). (b) An AAD brand (Argus) now well known to have an issue with cutter hardness and loop cuts, especially with the earlier cutter designs, and is very rare on the market now. These are known possible issues with AAD's, with mitigating factors applied, so the chances of them happening again are much smaller now. Sure, that doesn't mean other units can't have issues we haven't seen yet. But cutter failure seems a pretty small danger. To each our own.

Yes I'd pack. (But I've owned Racers by chance since '91.) Too many newer riggers in the guy's local area, who had never packed a Racer? That is the reason I assume? Rather than someone who has the skills but hates Racers? The manual does a good job in some ways, in showing techniques that work. Although seeing their video would help too. Still, the manual may have some confusing aspects -- The newer manual would show slightly different reserve flap arrangements than appropriate for an older Racer. And Racers could have any of a few different freebag designs. And there's still the old tacking of the closing loop from Kevlar loop days, although the manual does show it as being Optional. Nowadays we also have many riggers thinking closing loops should be replaced every repack, a problem on a Racer -- it could be more than an hour's job of tacking and whipping like some 1960's military rig, and maybe require ordering loops from Jump Shack if one is going to be really picky about using company parts. In a quick skim of the manual I'm not sure what else would baffle someone trying to pack from the manual alone. One should be able to pack from a manual... but if I were a newer rigger without Racer experience, I'd sure want to work with a rigger than knows them, to do the first repack. It would be interesting to hear stories of why someone is hesitant to pack one.

It ages very slowly, but the material does age. I can't claim any values with confidence, but here's something quotable from a 2014 post of mine in a similar thread: (Although just based on a single Australian military study in 1984 that used elevated heat to then extrapolate strength loss over many years in more normal conditions.) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4604089#4604089 UV and mechanical wear from packing are another matter.

Ok, while I am curious about the psychology of liars, this has gone further than I needed to know.... the ladies made it into that esteemed publication, the Daily Mail: NSFW! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5063707/Bungling-yachtswoman-kinky-sailor-dominatrix.html#ixzz4xy1UTj1C

Well, of course you don't need to lose altitude in turns. (In any normal powered aircraft at normal G loadings.) Learning to make proper level turns is a basic part of getting one's license. From one source I heard he had 700 hours since 2013. So he wasn't a total newb, and had some experience on the Icon, despite having picked his own one up recently. But my guess is also that he was just having too much fun down low, without flying accurately. Don't hit the ground (including water) at 100 mph.

Did he ever get back to the USA in recent years? He had a little issue at the US border some years back, heading down in his camper for the winter, carrying a pile of extra cash for living down there for a few months or something, legal money but not declared, fell out of favour with the border guys. Something like that. (I think he even asked for advice on DZ.)

Didn't expect that. He was out wasting time on dropzone.com just a couple weeks back!

Which manual? Many people don't care which side the brake line goes up, and on many canopies it makes only a tiny difference in angle. The brake lines go through the slider grommets, so until the slider is at the risers or later pulled down there can't be that much angular difference. I'm always interested if someone has an idea that's new to me, but I'm having trouble seeing why keeping the line to the canopy on the outside side of the toggles makes thht much difference. Maybe if one has lousy, loose toggles in the first place, where the slightest disturbance could knock them off the risers?? I suppose under the force of opening the line will pull the brake ring taut, with the line trying to align with the center of the ring. This will be more or less along the line of the riser - with only a tiny offset as the brake line goes up through the slider grommet. On most rigs the brake ring and the toggle keeper for it's tip are aligned, so yeah there could be side force on the toggle and keeper during opening, stressing the keeper. But it won't change that much with the line to the inside or outside side of the keeper. The tension might also try to twist the brake eye a little around the toggle -- trying to center it in the ring. So, yeah, there are some undesired stresses and forces going on around set brakes that can cause wear. But choosing to route the brake line inside or outside shouldn't have much effect. Certainly some people (including myself) try to give their brake line a tug after setting the brakes, so that any slack is taken up, avoiding too much friction from the brake eye on the toggle during opening. Just to help visualize the situation, attached is a capture from after opening. The guide ring is pulled a bit left as the brake line is on the left. During opening forces there probably was some side force against toggle stowed in its keeper. Although the brake line is on the 'inside' side, it pretty much follows the riser to go up through the slider grommet.

jennifer.appel.186 on facebook FWIW Some other skydivers must know her....

The Uranium thing is complex, and isn't just a matter of completely independent sales from one country to another -- all the transfers have or are supposed to have various strict restrictions. So the gun sales analogy doesn't actually work here. A decent primer I found: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/358339-uranium-one-deal-led-to-some-exports-to-europe-memos-show The deal had its ups and downs depending on to what degree Russia was out of favour or some rapprochement was being attempted. Given how Russia is viewed at the moment, it does seem reasonable to re-visit how the deal has worked out in practice. A couple quotes: ("Directly" in quotes in not very reassuring.) So Americans are getting Russian uranium! Who knew? One starts to see the issue is a wee bit messy...

Actually I might have jumped with her. People on sailing forums were trying to find out about her background, and found her facebook page -- which showed 2 mutual Friends when I checked it. Huh! When I asked one, he said that Jennifer had jumped at the Parachute School of Toronto for a summer in around 2008-2010, a place I occasionally jumped at. I think I recall her, as having an experienced female jumper -- from Texas I think -- showing up out of the blue in my area was unusual. (This would have been before her Hawaii days. She has very few Public photos on facebook, especially before 2015, but 1 or 2 suggest she was touring part of the eastern side of the US in summer '09 on her motorcycle.)