pchapman

I thought it was interesting that someone, Obelixtim in this case, did a little digging and brought us information, once the trial started happening. His analysis seems to be one reasonable point of view. If he's a little opinionated (on dropzone? say it isn't so!), or I don't agree with every opinion of his, or I don't know exactly what year he last dropped a static line student, it doesn't bother me much. I'd just stick to information about the attempted murder trial.

I made a similar point earlier that the confusion over what is being said, may be for a variety of reasons, since we aren't reading the full transcript. So the argument sounds a bit like: Point A: "Boy, the testimony makes the instructor sound like an idiot." Point B: "OK but we don't know the full context." And then we may just have leave that issue open, because Point A may be true in someone's opinion, but Point B is true too. (As for the BPA, it is a long-standing tradition to laugh at them, and it might take another generation or two of skydivers before that is no longer a thing. Who knows.)

I'll throw the blame at the manufacturers who never want to tell us what they're actually using especially when it is new to us. "We've got the fancy new Microline, or ZP, HMA, or our secret-sauce low bulk fabric...." Compare that to paragliding where, as I'm sure you know, they tend to tell you more details about what you're getting. It may be a material that is new and unknown or older and well understood, but they tend to tell you what it's called. This for example is what I saw when I just went and clicked on a manufacturer's page for a paraglider:

[Not replying to anyone in particular] A 12.5 year old Vigil may last have been inspected 12.5 years ago. Or 20 years ago at 20 years age. A 12.5 year old Cypres will normally have been factory inspected & component tested only 4.5 years ago. How likely are either to be in spec and not fail on the next jump? What can and can't factory testing catch when components age? Even if one's failure rate is more than the other, are the rates still "acceptable"? AAD component aging related questions don't usually have easy answers.

Interesting observations. I'm curious what the causes of those kinds of answers could be. All sorts of reasons come to mind: -- Getting a bit flustered about giving a carefully nuanced response on the stand. -- Having sentences taken out of context from a longer response. -- Having to respond specifically to a lawyer's narrow question without being able to provide further explanation. -- And just being too casual and not objective in their responses because they 'know' the bastard is guilty Although I think the sabotage-in-5-minutes thing is useful. Ok, I don't know if they need to SHOW it to the jury, as long as they have some proof that they've tested it and it works. I figure the guy is guilty but agree that witness evidence should be of high quality.

Follow up a year later: https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/GA-Company-Violates-North-Korea-Sanctions-229813-1.html The text being: I guess any sale was a good one for PAC!

I can't address Brent's remark directly. Possibly he's thinking of categories in the SIM rather than the actual altitudes achieved, but I'll leave that to someone who knows the US system better. Still, static line doesn't always "hold back" people as much these days, if they happen to be the fortunate ones who have no major progression hangups. This is an example from a Canadian DZ, where the standard PFF (like AFF) program is minimum 10 jumps including the low jump and Solo certificate test jump, while the static line is minimum 12 jumps: 5 x 4000’ (S/L, TRCP, first freefalls) 1 x 4500’ 1 x 5500’ 1 x 6500’ 3 x 8500’ 1 x 10500’

That's a phase of flight that if I recall correctly has set off AAD's of different types with no authoritative explanation why. We've sometimes heard ideas kicked around that sound plausible but who knows. In particular, the idea of the swooper losing speed during the pullout & planeout, results in a lessened burble, which equals a suddenly increasing pressure which equals a sudden drop, activating the AAD. Or it could just be the AAD reacting to a high dive speed in the middle of the swoop but taking a little while to filter & confirm the speed before popping the reserve pilot chute, which then appears when the swooper has partially planed out. Various aspects of those scenarios are debatable. But I've still never seen a good explanation of such situations. So that last hundred or few hundred feet of altitude is a bit mysterious....

Well ya never know. Although I was thinking of the more common situation of an off-landing retrieval, where the land isn't perfectly flat. (Although the cure for uncertainty there is just to cycle the AAD off and on...)

Shlomo Pearl* had a set of reserve inspection / packing / maintenance tips that were presented at the PIA at some point. In them he suggested +1" compared to the grommet centerlines. (When the fabric is pulled taut of course) (Wings are an exception though.) That +1" does tend to produce a pretty tight stow however, so I can see the numbers you suggested also working. Just providing someone else's opinion. * Apparently Master Rigger I/E; 10k+ jumps; "RIGGER" on dz.com.

Nice digging for info. So basically the Javelin folks say they test each roll of bungee material they get, because there is variation, and they check not just the length but stretch after construction. Well. One find all sorts of variations in used safety stows out there. Like all stretched out over the years. Or ones that are super tight because the reserve uses bulky Dacron line. Firebird uses some extra skinny, stretchy stow that seems rather light. Wings have their own stow material that's a bit different that what the others use, maybe a little stretchier (not sure offhand). Still, most companies all use similar bungee and sizing concepts (relative to the length between the grommets). Plus of course the tightness depends on the canopy vs. bag size, and how the rig was packed (such as to what degree the safety stow holding part of the bag is scrunched together). And the same stow systems hold the weight of reserves from 99's to 360's. So there is a lot of variation in the field. On the one hand I don't like to see crappy stows, on the other hand the stuff that's out there often does the job even if nowhere close to factory spec. A rigger sewn stow might not perfectly match factory strech specs (even if it matches length after sewing), but it may be a lot better than what was previously in the rig. FAA rules are another thing!

A zero altitude on an AAD isn't a way to tell whether the pressure sensor is reading accurately. (It could catch some errors, but not others. It could have pressure sensor problems but chose to consider that wrong value to be ground level.) But it does have some usefulness. At least helps understand what mode the AAD is in. "Does it think I'm still airborne? What about that car ride to the DZ? Has it updated recently for weather changes?" That's a issue for AADs.

Yeah, it is all a little confusing and annoying, due to historical reasons... but that shouldn't dissuade anyone from buying any of the companies' equipment. And having a US-based IcarusWorld, will make the large US market more comfortable with buying something from a foreign company. Good dealers & distributors & company offshoots in one's own country always make sales & service easier. (So who does NZ Aerosports sales & service these days in N. America?)

Icarus (Spain) is still there, at icaruscanopies.aero as usual. (Not icaruscanopies.com that has long redirected to NZ Aerosports.) I'm guessing Icarus World is somehow the US marketing arm, possibly collaborating on future projects, but the relationship wasn't clear in the press release. Icarusworld.net appears to be essentially a copy or mirror of icaruscanopies.aero. Both say they are copyright Icarus Canopies S.L., which would be the Spanish company. You can't have enough Icaruses!

I have seen an extension added to the flap in a case like this. It was an ugly job but served its purpose. Factory unapproved but taken care of locally. (As long as the flap still slips out of the lower flap pocket smoothly as normal...) Edit: Wings W10, with a Tempo 170, which might have been slightly overstuffing it (I haven't checked the data)

None of us are going to provide a complete answer within a reasonable length reply, but everyone is explaining some aspects of the puzzle. Another factor to consider is brake line setup and characteristics of particular canopies. One might have a lot of brake line slack on a particular setup, so then clearly moving quickly past that is useful, as there won't be any flare until the slack is taken up. Then some canopies have their "power band" higher or lower in the flare position. That's not a scientific term, just a reflection of where in the hand range you feel more effect. Someone used to having a lot of flare effect with hands still fairly high up on a particular canopy, say at their waist, might think a different canopy flares like crap -- until someone reminds them that that new canopy gets a lot of its flare deep down low in the hand range, so that they have to be sure to get their hands way down to get a good flare. So if a lot of flare power is lower down in the hand range, naturally you'll want to move through the higher hand ranges quicker and get to the good stuff, more flare power, down low. Perceptions of higher and lower are naturally also affected by how you fit in your harness and whether you have shorter or longer arms.

There is a lot of "it depends". Someone might recommend "slow and smooth" because landings are usually easier if you have some time to react to what the canopy is doing and progressively adjust one's input. Assuming the canopy has the flare ability to stay planed out when one does that. Rather than waiting until the last moment low to the ground and then hammering the brakes. At the same time, "slow and smooth" can be too slow and smooth - Then you don't get the canopy fully planed out, and/or you run out of speed and energy. And what someone says may depend on the nature of the canopy. Is it a typical modern ZP canopy at a typical wing loading for that design of canopy? Is it a slow boaty canopy without a lot of speed and energy to plane out with? Is it an F-111 reserve that is heavily loaded, and if so, is it an older design with a flatter trim or a more modern one? Is it a fast ZP canopy but overloaded? Some of these situations may require a lower, sharper flare to not waste the limited plane out ability. A smooth finish to the flare may be good if you have slowed down enough to easily jog out the landing on a smooth surface. If you are able to get to nearly zero speed, then you might drop down a little lower and then finish off with a harder flare at the end to pop up, to drop down standing on your feet. I think Chuck's statement, that I think I saw recently in some other thread, was a little controversial. But it is more about the definition of the term: There can also be endless debate about the meaning of "2-stage", whether that means robotically flaring to one arm position and then to another, and nothing more. Or whether it encompasses all flares more complex than a robotic slam-it-down 1 stage flare. In which case one might call a typical flare actually 3 stage flare. Begin the pullout from ones descent, to a very gradual descent (not quite planed out) to get down the last couple feet, until transitioning to fully level flight feet just off the ground, plus maybe a popup at the end. Oh wait, is that 4 stage? So then "2-stage" flare might as well be called an "infinite stage flare" as one is always getting feedback from the canopy and adjusting as one goes. I like seeing 2-stage flare used as a generic term covering everything beyond a 1-stage flare. An actual landing can be something more than the most simplistic of 2-stage flares, but so that we actually have a term for it, keep the term 2-stage flare to cover all flares that have separated some sort of plane out from a second segment of flight that exists before touchdown. On a typical canopy, you don't want to be so slow and smooth that you start so early that you run out of energy at the end and have a hard, fast landing. But you don't want to be so fast on the flare that you have to time the flare just perfectly every time to avoid slamming into the ground.

You let yourself get rushed (beyond what you could handle). So you made a couple of little screwups. You were a dumbass. We all do that from time to time. You lived. You learned a good lesson, that you'll remember your entire skydiving career, and maybe avoid a bigger screwup some day. That's a good lesson, and it didn't cost you too much. Hope you bought your rigger a drink (if that's a tradition where you are).

Fabric if well stored and not kept at a high temperature only degrades very very slowly. And remember that people now are still using 20-25 year old PD reserves. So that aspect is ok. If you are used to F-111 landings on a smaller canopy, no problem. If you are used to snappy 80s style openings, no problem. If not .... you probably can pass on it. I know newbies are always looking for a good deal, and old does not equal "bad", but there are some items it is easier to just skip. (If it is a super cheap deal, yes it is usable for a newbie who has little money. And I've known someone who did in recent years start with F-111 and then transitioned to newer gear. But a canopy like that has little to do with modern skydiving.)

The OP stated: You ran with part of that (mals), while others ran with another part of that (VR in general). It seems reasonable to discuss both.

All valid points. Although I would say virtual reality would allow a student to work on their 3D flying ability, to learn how to set up a pattern and land where they want despite the vagaries of winds. VR is especially nice for skydiving flight simulators as compared to airplane simulators, because the angles tend to be greater for skydiving. You can practice landing a plane with computer screens that show a view down 10 degrees from the horizon, but for a parachute you really need screens going down say 90 degrees -- hence VR goggles being handy. More than one canopy flight simulator for one's computer has been built for people to play with, but I don't think they ever got a lot of use, especially outside of the home. Is anyone using them any more? (Ref: A thread in 2014 by a designer of one that is online http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4592750#4592750) Anyway, I haven't heard of any civilian DZ using VR & suspended harness simulators, or even just PC based simulation. If anyone did, that would be interesting to hear.

This isn't an uncommon situation for newbies, to be told to follow a bunch of rules. Experienced jumpers know which rules are harder or softer or rules of thumb or presented too simplistically or which take precedence over others when there's a conflict. But the studious newbie tries to satisfy all the rules simultaneously and his brain explodes trying to do so. This era of digital altimeters and recorders like Flysight have some advantages, but also make it more confusing for newbies. In the old days everyone knew the numbers were approximate, as you didn't have a lot of time to try to read off a millimetre or two difference on your analog wrist altimeter and decide "Should I turn yet? Am I at 400 or 600'?" If someone asked me at what altitudes I turn, when doing a non-accelerated landing pattern, I really have no idea. Why would I ever bother to look at my alti -- yes still an old analog -- once I get close to the circuit? I just care about locations over the ground and flight path angles and where everyone else is. An alti in the circuit helps more for the newbie trying to figure things out .... but if others give him numbers that don't apply well or are less important than other factors, then it is confusing. By now you've heard some of this already but here goes with the advice: The circuit heights people are told are not always the ones people actually use, and are sometimes higher than even newbies need. 900 600 300 might actually by 700 400 250 or similar. Especially when the area is tight. The base leg can be shortened to pretty much just to: "turn, go straight and look around briefly, and another turn onto final". It doesn't need to be a long segment. As long as base it isn't so short that on downwind one is descending face to face with people on long finals! Then final approach just needs to be long enough that you can make minor adjustments to your flight path and be ready to flare without rushing. Down the road at higher experience level, a jumper might be doing an accelerated landing so even a 90 degree turn onto final transitions straight to a flare. And I'll emphasize that any of the above is modified by having to fit in with what everyone else is doing. You'll just have to manage any conflicts in real time so that you neither scare yourself or anyone else in the air, and still find a spot to land safely.

Ah, you're the guy with the odd questions. Sure, students can land in water. Might cost a bit though to move all the DZs. Or have students land in a giant field covered in 2 feet of marshmallows, to reduce landing injuries. Again, it might push the price of a first jump course up a tad. Landing in water can be pretty demanding, needing extra facilities like boats, and expense in activating flotation gear, which unless water-activated take some skill too. So we'd likely trade some drownings for a bunch of ankle injuries. But thanks for the link to the extreme sports sportsmed presentations.

FWIW, I had a couple bad experiences with Mirage's customer service and company memory and rigging ability, as noted in the following post (that also quoted a few others) from earlier in 2017: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4839070#4839070

And in the old days, there were no such things as toggle keepers, and things were OK. So they aren't necessary. But they became normal for a number of reasons. Certainly very important once people started setting risers up to move the slider down past the links (to keep the slider from catching the toggle). Also useful to keep the toggle in place once velcro was abandoned for sometimes poorly-designed tuck tab designs. And useful in general to just be one extra thing keeping the toggle securely in position. In the same vein as what others said, a suddenly torn elastic suggests the toggle wasn't set properly in the first place -- brake eye above ring not below.