pchapman

Ok, take it easy... It's starting to look like you don't know too much about rigs and need to take some time to absorb info from other skydivers around the DZ, before asking a million questions and deciding what rig you must have. (Yes, the Javelin can be used for freefly...) Still, good catch on the Mirage Trap inspection thing.

Wow! Nice catch. I don't see Mirage advertising that. I couldn't even find that until I googled and found it way down hidden in a long list of FAQs in tiny print. That is NOT IN THE MANUALS as far as I can tell. I couldn't find it in the sections on packing the Trap, or Limited Life Components, or Inspections. Nor is it part of their News at their web site -- Creating a life limit for a component of the harness is big news! (So, if it isn't in a manual, or an official bulletin, what weight does it have legally? I'm tired of the B.S. about following manufacturers' instructions when they hide stuff here and there, so that the only technically legal way to pack a reserve is to look at every page of their entire web site every repack.) Sending a whole container back to the manufacturer is a big pain, especially for those away from the United States. Mirage's wording doesn't even technically allow for packing without the Trap, so if you have mal #3 (non-total) at a boogie you are screwed, even if you find your freebag and keep your handles. (Or send it in during the off-season after 2 uses..) The "3 uses then inspection" wouldn't be a bother for most people, but I have a swooper as a rigging customer who would have had to send such a rig in twice in the last 10 years.

Regarding this video of a business jet flying over an open canopy, in a near mid air: There was something out on the web that it was faked. I didn't try to figure out whether that's true or not. (It was something about an artifact seen on a particular still frame, some discontinuity for the plane vs. the parachute. Though the video looks pretty realistic in general, before any closer look. So is there any confirmation of it being fake, or an actual jumper / location / date available somewhere?)

Thanks for the correction about the consequences. In any case, an example of dangerous distraction from a suddenly open door.

I guess they weren't installed yet at that early picture. Would be at the top corners in any case.

So you might be thinking of, what was it, the jumper in NY state who fell to his death at low altitude while trying to close a Cessna door that had popped open.

As I said I didn't like the way it was that in the one picture of the Aussie rig, the original flaps are just left "inside" the new container. Looks like a line snag hazard. Riser covers are somewhat messed up at the transition between the original container and the new add on (if doing in my way, not the Aussie way), where the original ones get squished down under the new add on - but it isn't like this mod is intended for freeflying. As for shifting, my add-on container might slide down an inch since there is some flex with webbing and fabric, unless one built things really thick and solid. To prevent the new container from say sliding down an inch, I made it so one could tie the top edge of the add-on to points along that line between the main and reserve containers, at the backpad. I could have made my add-on more sophisticated with thicker, stiffer, nicely tapered flaps, like most modern rigs, which reduces line snag potential. Other than having a big bulky rig that hangs down lower, I don't see other major problems.

Depends on your eyes. Some jumpers use regular wraparound sunglasses that fit well, with no foam at all. Fine for them and really convenient, but that gives more wind than I find comfortable (unless doing just a short delay). So those sunglasses with foam-with-ventilation-gaps might work for you. For most people however, I think one would want something that seals completely, which usually (but not exclusively) means some goggles made for skydiving.

I have once or twice read something in a brochure about hiking, mentioning wearing orange or bright clothing because of hunting season. Now, I might understand it if it were for trails in some area that was PRIMARILY for hunting. But if not, I thought the hunters should be responsible, and not fling bullets around if they can't be sure they won't murder people walking on trails. Otherwise, telling hikers to wear orange to avoid getting shot just seemed to me like some government saying, "By the way ladies, enjoy the municipal park, but don't wear anything too revealing because it might get you raped! It's a pretty rapey park, just so you know, not that we're doing anything about it. If you wear a short skirt, just remember, you were kind of asking for it."

Looking back at the Australian photos, I see they seem to have wrapped the new 3-flap container around from the backpad, leaving the existing flaps apparently just sitting around inside the new larger container space. I didn't like that so on my version, slapped the new backpad surface down on top of the old 3 flaps, avoiding any snag potential. (I made mine pretty crude as it isn't needed for many jumps a year. It could have a more solid backpad against the user's back, but just has 3 strips of velcro on webbing. To keep the new container from sliding around, I also have a couple spots along the top edge where it ties off to tacked loops on the existing container.)

As a rigger I just built one myself after seeing the Aussie style & accuracy team using them at the Worlds in 2003. They had more professionally built ones and looked good (although inevitably lumpy with a big main and small reserve). Don't know the name for it. Three flaps and a back piece fit on top of the existing main container flaps (that are just tucked away underneath), and the original top flap and pin cover flap are used. The whole assembly velcros in some manner around the backpad and laterals in order to stay in position. I had posted about it before on dz a couple times, when people asked about accommodating bigger canopies, but I never saw anyone else post, who had experience with such things. I use it to get a Paracommander into an already large accuracy rig.

Argh, there's the problem with any politicized discussion these days. You start off with one of those one-sided nutter type statements that technically might apply to a small percentage on the far end of the spectrum, but seems to attack 50% of the spectrum as being idiots. Or maybe it doesn't say it, but can be taken to imply it. Which then seems to require a counterattack, against a nutter who isn't reasonable and can't look at things rationally. And that's all seen, if someone jumps to conclusions, as a fault of the other 50%. Then things degenerate into the counterarguments of why "You people are all nutjobs?", vs. "No, why are YOU people all nutjobs." So I start thinking, oh, airdvr is one of those right wing nutjobs. But then you go post something reasonable, something with good sources and nuanced conclusions, looking at perceptions compared to what information is available, and the various possible conclusions and uncertainties. Of course it was a conversational gambit. Still, it makes every damn discussion a battle. If your town changed the traffic light signal programs, and someone starts thinking "I get more red lights now!", that could be true or could be a psychological effect. To be investigated rather than pretending to strongly take one side in order to set up an ambush against anyone countering that strong statement.

Yes. So you'll jump with a coach and learn to move up or down relative to the coach, move towards and away from the coach, and so on. That's bout the fine maneuvering within say 10 feet of each other. Thats' a minimum of 5 jumps, as part of the requirements for your A certificate. Formation flying on your belly is traditionally known as RW, but at the formal competition level is known as FS, Formation Skydiving. The CSPA uses "RW" both for belly flying, and for flying formation in any body position, depending on the context. (Eg, if you aren't allowed to do RW with someone, it doesn't mean you can try sit fly with them, because that's not belly flying.)

I have seen that Harman (& Vivash) tale in various aviation books over the years and it has become pretty accepted in that sense, and not just pulled out of thin air. But I always thought that tale was rather iffy -- but I can't be sure it is impossible. I'll believe in amazing luck in wartime. (For example, take 1000 people, hunt 990 to death, and you'll have 10 with amazing stories of impossible escapes and dodging more bullets than a Hollywood movie.) With Herman it was the nearly unbelievable physics that concerned me. The story is much more iffy than say the ones about Nick Alkemade or Lt. Chisov falling without a parachute into trees and snow and surviving, which is also in accepted history. Bailout rigs would have had undiapered, canopy-first openings, with no staging or reefing yet developed. So I would imagine some brutal openings. But who knows, maybe the occasional rare, messy opening actually was slower, if the canopy entangled or streamered for a few seconds by chance?? One version of the story I saw said the canopy did open slowly, as part of its explanation. So who knows. I'm a bit sceptical but can't say I know for sure that WWII parachutes opened hard 99.999% of the time. I had sometimes wondered if Herman had survived something where he didn't have a parachute, but got the details wrong due to concussion or whatever in battle. Did he grab another crew member as the plane first came apart rather than after a long freefall? Although broken heavy aircraft do often fall fast themselves so sometimes one would be slowing down to terminal, so that idea isn't a great explanation either. I still have to listen to that very grainy audio -- interesting find! -- to hear a fuller story as he told it. Can you summarize it if you have listened and could make out what he was saying? I would want more details about the circumstances and how it was reported and documented, before being more certain about any conclusions. The best amateur site I've seen on long freefall survival is http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/ffresearch.html. It's a collection of stories, and while the author can't verify or debunk everything, he does seem to be reasonable and not sensationalistic. He has collected a whole bunch of tales all in one place. Herman's tale is in the "Other Amazing Stories" section, but without much detail. He does have an "Unlucky skydivers" section too.

Clearly it depends what local custom is, whether it is normal to go through some cloud at the DZ. Given a DZ where one will jump through cloud, that thin layer would have been reasonable to jump through, and the newbie wouldn't even have been on their own since it was a 2 way. You were conservative and looking out for the newbie, and that's not a bad thing. Even if you decided to jump solo or in the 2 way, you would want to give the newbie a choice because anyone can choose to ride the plane down. It is a problem for new jumpers though: What do they do if they are taught one set of rules but see different behaviour, and are not taught how to deal with those non-normal conditions? For example, the USPA SIM says nothing about jumping into solid cloud layers, or what to do under canopy in cloud. Not even as a special case under some 'emergency procedures' heading. It is also a grey area for DZ operations: Everyone needs to be somewhat on board with how things work at the DZ. Otherwise a jumper could ask why the pilot kept climbing if a solid layer was forming under them; they should have descended below it immediately. For it wasn't a case where the pilot could turn on the green light and maybe the jumpers could see a legal hole of at least 4000 feet diameter perfectly placed (to maintain 2000' clear of cloud horizontally). With a bigger aircraft it isn't like it sometime was in a C-182, where the pilot and jumpers could discuss the matter before climbing up between clouds, to come to a mutual decision -- "Hey these clouds are really building up. You want a hop and pop below them, or do you want to climb? Of course you'll pay for whatever altitude we get even if we have to descend later."

If the prop stops suddenly that imparts a huge mechanical load on the moving parts in the engine - even if just idling at 1000 rpm - and on all the parts they are restrained by, like bearings. So a "sudden stoppage" definitely needs the engine opened up for inspection and measurement of parts. Generally engine companies want the same if a prop strike slowed the engine at all, such as when hitting some object while taxiing. The actual law is a little complex as to what is mandatory in different circumstances. E.g, "What if you have a prop strike against an object, that slowed the engine but didn't stop it, and it is a Continental for which there is no AD about prop strike procedures unlike for Lycoming, and you are operating under Part 91 and not 135 where all service directives would be mandatory? " Here's a big article in Avweb: https://www.avweb.com/news/features/The-Prop-StrikeSudden-Stop-222325-1.html I don't know the details myself...

And the scatologists think it's all just a pile of...

You'll get better answers from instructors more current than I in submitting paperwork, but anyway: You'll be a member of the CSPA for a year from when the application is processed, you'll get a plastic membership card, you'll be in the online database that DZ's can check, you'll get the Canpara magazine (5-6* / yr), .... and you'll pay to support the volunteer organization in handlingskydiving issues and developing instructional manuals. The Solo certification can be sent in any time. Although presumably you don't want to send the CSPA membership application in later, as they won't issue a CSPA certificate to a non-member. Yeah for every licence level (certificate level) you do have to be careful to get all the required jumps and the appropriate signoffs by the right levels of coaches and instructors. I'm not quite sure what DZ's do about any gap after jump 10 while waiting for CSPA affliation. I think as long as you are at the same DZ and they know you are sending things in, they might not worry about it. (I don't hear of students taking a big break in the middle of their instruction just to wait for the paperwork to go through.)

I don't know what's up in the UK, but I assume you mean that the BBC you feel is too uncritical about statements from the government, which would be true under any government lately? (So that it isn't specifically about this particular government)

Ah, you meant how to make a loop end for the toggle, rather than doing a figure 8 with a knot there.

WTF? How in the world? Leaving that aside, I have some old PISA info, see attached. You may be able to derive the needed info from the seemingly odd way it lists brake settings, relative to the A/B/C/D lines. EDIT: I may have misunderstood your wording. You're probably talking about the mark for the toggles, where one forms a loop. Not that there's no brake eye at all.

The Calvin & Hobbes explanation, for anyone who hasn't seen it:

To be fair to bigots, he isn't technically threatening, saying HE would do the job...just that some people out there might want to do that job. But yeah, there is always the possibility of a vague, veiled threat. "Gee, it sure would be awfully sad if someone decides to make you disappear...[chuckle]."

That's a well thought through list Chuck. I would make a couple minor changes and I'm sure everyone would have their own variants. 3. Get top notch gear, maintain it properly, and equip yourself with the best technology 3. Get gear that is safe for the mission, and maintain it properly. (You don't need fancy new expensive shit. Although that makes it easier. A brand new rig will have fewer limitations than a Vector II. A Vector II may be perfectly fine for some things, but would be more dangerous in a newbies hands, since he may not know all the caveats.)(Certainly there are differing opinions on what you "should" have these days "to be safe". RSL? MARD?) 8a. If you choose to do something intentionally more dangerous, make sure you are doing it as safely as possible in the circumstances. (e.g., CRW is more dangerous than not doing CRW. So learn to do it properly if that's what you want to do.) 8b. Even if risking yourself, don't risk others who aren't involved. (e.g., take a chance with yourself if you want, but don't take off the tail of the airplane or hit someone else in freefall or under canopy. Jumping with a 3rd canopy being deployed from a shopping bag? Sure! But make sure it isn't going to get loose in the door and endanger everyone else.)(DZO's may have a more risk averse feeling on this though, as these days they get all picky about people dying on their DZ's)

Yeah, I guess it would get tougher to get upside down with smaller canopies and shorter risers and some body sizes. It can take a couple tries to swing one's legs up into the risers. I have at 6'1" and 155lb hung upside down on my Sabre 135 with 22" risers but even light pressure with feet on the risers does start it turning so it is pretty finicky. It's only when flying a 'boat' of a canopy that it becomes a bit safer. Attached are a couple pics under larger canopies, I think with big 24" risers. (Fun and all but still not a normal response to a flip through.)