pchapman

So to educate people, Rob, how do the P-124's brakes work? I'd guess that it is set up permanently in brakes, and pulling the toggles pulls another line that tugs more on the brake line. But how to do it without excessive slack (creating no turn effect for the first bunch of toggle pull) while preventing a full arms-down position from stalling the already braked canopy? Or is it somehow set up as a turn toggle rather than a flare toggle? Unfortunately the P-124 web site doesn't make the feature clear, nor does the manual. No help for riggers who might be the ones asked whether the rig is recommended or not. More effective communication would make it less likely that a rigger would for example think that the rig is dangerous if a jumper pulled only one toggle and let go. The web site does mention "The 246 and 280 sq ft canopies have a unique modulated control system, which allows for their use by aircrew personnel with minimal additional training required over and above what they receive on current round parachute systems.", while in the manual, facing into the wind is mentioned but flaring is not. Nor are brakes 'set' the conventional way. That's about it for info from the company.

I doubt there is one; I'd be surprised if anyone has bothered. You'll probably have talk to experienced jumpers & riggers to get all the nuances and different arguments, or search on here for a particular type of gear. I do understand that newbies would like to have things explained simply ("Just tell me what to buy! What's the best gear?"), but one doesn't tend to see any overall lists, just opinions on particular items.

Alrighty. We all, me included, get enthusiastic about the cool stuff we've been into and sometimes have posted more than once about the same stuff at different times in different threads. And the history of MARDs is a little complex, whether about dates or to what degree one design derives from another. There is an element of "put up or shut up" when it comes to still-proprietary work by a company. Ok, company A did something and company B did something else, but if company C also did something cool... but doesn't want to talk about it yet, what can I say, it doesn't help the conversation much to say, "Nyah nyah I got a secret you don't.... but I'm not gonna tell". Anyway, I should try downloading that ACE [& Peregrine] manual again. Now I know why the thing didn't seem to want to download or open, it is a freaking 830 MB or so...[Correction, that's the rig manual, not the ACE one. Downloads keep failing.]

Sure, if you expect PD's site to look like this: Edit: Clearly there are problems for some users at some times, yet not for others.

Emailed trim chart Rev D, current in 2012. Latest I had on the computer.

Even if you or someone took a cellphone photo of the applicable page(s) and could upload it or email it (and I'd post it), that would add to what's available online about the rigs. ... Not that there's much demand to pack ancient GQ's anyway, whatever the arguments.

Sounds like what you saw is correct. The Wings cutaway housing has no tack at the chest strap, unlike some other rigs. The housing is tacked up higher as you saw -- the long housing just above where it is visible in the area next the the wearer's right base 3-ring. That allows for some flexing in the short housing. I checked that on a brand new Wings a customer has at my place right now. Some companies like some extra flex in the system, in case of hard openings etc. Eg, Vector II's used to always have a 'tack with slack' under the mudflap, that allowed the housing to move up an inch if needed. Even though plenty of older rigs had people tack the housings down in a fixed manner, contrary to RWS's design. But that's just my general understanding and other riggers would know better about the design intent and details.

?! Haven't seen them in my area (Ontario Canada). Educating myself: A general explanation -- apparently available in most US states after a federal traffic guide allowed it: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/05/flashing-yellow-turn-signal-good-drivers-bad-fo-pedestrians/5450/ And an example from Oregon on their exact rules: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/comm/pages/flashing_yellow.aspx Flashing yellow certainly isn't the same as a flashing green, that was often used here to show you have the total right of way to turn left, but was mostly replaced by a green arrow. Excuse the digression from porn...

The fear thing is a natural part of skydiving. It wouldn't be as cool and amazing to a lot of people if there weren't those mental hurdles to get past. Remember you're not the only one. Plenty of others have gone through the same thing and made it past it. Every jumper has been a slightly clueless student at one time. It's almost like a hazing ritual to be allowed into the sport. But nobody is being mean and doing it to you-- it's the sky doing it to you. You may get some ribbing about it (eg, creative get-the-sand-out-of-your-vag suggestions). Although there are instructors who don't quite know how to deal with someone with the mental part of being a student, generally jumpers are supportive about how to focus & relax and get past the door monster or whatever freaks a newbie out. Plenty of other newbies have asked on this forum about how to deal with fear that either stops them at the door or gives them problems finishing their assigned tasks in freefall.

Interesting, I'd like to see that, or the applicable section! It's an old problem: One can have a bunch of old manuals on something, but how does one know if there's one missing? Especially if there's no current manufacturer's web site. I have a few copies off the web, or the old Parachute Rigger's Reference Library, of GQ US manuals (1980-1982) and UK (2000+) manuals, but only saw life limits in newer UK publications. That's a separate company and they themselves told me they have no control over the old gear from the US. The British manual on the 350 Mk2 makes no reference to FAA certification. I agree with you on the unclear nature of the situation -- as you said, "vague statements they hope will be retroactive". The FAA's letter is debatably a little vague too. One can interpret it (as you and many do) that if your rig came with a manual listing a service life, that applies. That is indeed the easiest interpretation and a valid one. But one can also interpret it as saying if there wasn't a service life on the first one built, then no limit ever applies unless an AD is issued. (Some others have gone with that, and I have tended to do so at times, although it is more of a stretch) An example of that line of thinking, right or wrong: If one has a 1 year old Paraphernalia, it is a TSO'd parachute -- and that very same TSO'd parachute was "sold before a service life was established". Therefore the old rules at certification applies. Even if yours came with a manual saying 20 years. According to that thinking, Paraphernalia can't change the service life of something they've already certified (without an AD). They would have to certify a Softie Mk2 and put a life on it from the beginning. The issue I guess is whether "a parachute ...sold before a service life was established" means the individual parachute, or that type of parachute. After all, if you are looking at a C182 with someone, the English language does allow "This plane was first sold in 1956!" to either apply to that individual object, or all C182's in general -- as confusing as that may be. The last big paragraph in the FAA letter says that using a "newly established service life" requires an AD. Again, is that taken on its own relative to the initial TSO (no limit originally = no limit ever)? Or relative to the prior paragraph which might be talking about whether a service life is found in the manual that came with the rig? Without further guidance, riggers can in the end pick whatever interpretation they feel comfortable with for themselves...

FWIW, there's a US manual in the UK Skydiver rigging manuals section: http://www.uk-skydiver.co.uk/cms/files/file/2975-model-350/ That's April '80. There exists a May '80 addendum that changes the description of parts slightly but no change to packing, but I'm not sure if that's online.

So you would have a US made GQ 350. No restriction in its manual that I recall. If you have a modern GQ 350, as is stated in the British manual it is perhaps a "GQ SECURITY TYPE 350 MK 2". I haven't checked the manual in detail, but it lists a British CAA certification, not FAA. Two almost separate things. If you want another thread, here's a post I once made on one, that gives various opinions suggesting that even Irvin GQ in the UK say they have no jurisdiction over what happens with ancient US GQ rigs. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2866920#2866920 Unlike what I say early in that post, I now pretty clearly feel Irvin/GQ have no control over the old US rigs and have no way to change their lifespan. We have had the FAA's ruling since the time of that thread (2007) about how only the original restrictions apply to an FAA certified parachute unless an AD is issued. You can still make your own rigging decision on the condition of that 1981 rig.

Great flying then I guess. Too bad that something real, exciting, and demonstrating high skills gets CGI'd into something stupid, overdone, and fake looking for brainless whuffos. Guess that's movies for ya.

These are hardly immutable "laws". More like generalized statements. Indeed some have their limits and if applied wrong, produce contradictory or opposite to the intended effects, while some have little value in creating correct actions. One might as add Law #7 = "Don't %$#$ up". The reasoning in #4 is poor, making a messy explanation of the factors and relative influence of time of exposure to the wind, freefall speed, and canopy flight directions. (In addition being unclear about flying "back" to the DZ when the example only works for a spot prior to the DZ, which is unstated.) Just because is able to write stuff doesn't mean one should about every subject. That being said, it is very difficult to write something up coherent yet compact on the various factors affecting exits.

I understand the sentiment but there's a difference between doing things once as a novelty once and adopting something as a lifestyle. (Baksteen made a similar point.) For example, some young jumper on dz.com once had that issue: His parents didn't want him to start skydiving but came to accept he would go make a jump. He made his first jump, and the parents thought, "Phew, thankfully that's over with! He diced with death, has made a skydive, but now that'll be out of his system, no need to ever do that again!" Which might work for a majority of the people who do tandems, but for those who end up on dz.com, generally is just about the opposite of what they feel...

Interesting to hear that Mirage said the cable length is supposedly correct. Did they not have any comment on that amount of slack? (For others: I've packed that rig a couple times.) The rig has been that way a long time I guess, and it has worked... but it still doesn't give one a really warm and fuzzy feeling. If one can't stretch the rig in any way to lose all slack it should be ok, but it is hard to tell if one is loading the rig in every way it could be on a jump. As I think you said Chris, the reserve size is indeed 'optimal' according to the Mirage sizing chart, so there's no overstuffing involved. I checked another Mirage with a pillow handle and is typical for such handles, there's plenty of slack (about 2 3/4").

There are arguments that show that heavy boots aren't all bad. With your experience you wouldn't be on fast canopies yet where it is more awkward to have grippy boots, and where being able to slide part of a landing is a more useful ability. BASE jumpers on big squares have often used supportive boots (including Hanwag paragliding boots) in rougher terrain. One certainly can run in boots. Nevertheless, they are still generally not a great idea and generally not needed and are a hazard if doing formations with other jumpers. If you need ankle support there may be somewhat less extreme solutions.

Ok, while we're piling on the unfortunates at Mirage, here's my Mirage customer service anecdote: (Admittedly, this was 5-8 yrs back) A local jumper needed new handles and a freebag, and ordered from Mirage over the phone. When she got the order, she got a freebag, no pilot chute. Technically those are separate components but when a jumper needs a replacement freebag, a gear company should probably double check whether the jumper would like a reserve pilot chute too...

To summarize: The pilot chute size thing was just one point you were making about canopy packing methods in general, way back in post #4. A fair enough concept, that sometimes gets talked about. (E.g., Bill Booth has sometimes written about pilot chute sizes and how much it should decelerate relative to the jumper, when pulling the bag out.). While that particular 3% number looked quite reasonable to you due to the FAA relying on it in testing material, others of us then dug a little deeper, to show that the FAA's use of the number is a little shaky and not up to date.

Interesting, although it is also in vol 1, which while printed in 1991 was last revised in 1984 it says in the cover. (Page 338 in 1991 printing) So the data is at least 32 years old. And who knows, maybe even older and for rounds. Good job FAA! "Probably nothing new in skydiving since then." (And I did the calcs, for a Velo 89 you want a 22" diameter PC according to the FAA. And a bit under 26" for a 120 canopy) I have seen newer info in the last decade from various skydiving manufacturers on their recommendations for pilot chute sizes.

Only 1 person died in the 100+ attempts. (At least that's what the Canadian news reports. Didn't dig deeper or check your link to see if MSN misreported or what.) If it is a cry for help, things could be far worse. But sarcastically, as for getting the job done, some people are pretty useless.

Any idea what kind of speed & altitude & distance were involved for that first stage return? They sure have their control systems worked out, that landing was so nice and smooth, a continual curving approach right to the point of landing. No waiting to get vertical before bringing it all the way in, or hesitation to recalculate before setting down the last few feet.

Now the rest of the ground off area looks OK, without any movement. So I'm wondering if it was just a few strands of the cable, closest to the pin, that weren't ground down fully, being somewhat hidden within the channel that finishes in that 'elbow' of the pin. Then something caught the strands and pulled them up and away from the pin so they stick out. No movement of the cable overall; no structural probem; just strands getting bent into an undesired area. Just a guess though; I don't have any pins near me to help me look at the details of their construction.

For skydivers, 99+% square. I still have one older rigging customer who hasn't replaced his gear forever, with a round in his Vector I, all else are square. (There are also a tiny number of vintage gear enthusiasts around, like myself, who have rounds in their old gear for special occasions. I did have to use a 34 yr old Strong LoPo in 2012.) There came a point where skydivers saw that squares had been developed enough and were really good, and despite a substantially higher cost, pretty much just bought squares when buying new gear. (e.g., Paragear 1990 - typical round $650, typical square $875) Probably by the mid 80s, something like that? So then it just took time for older gear to be retired. Even in '94 I packed more rounds than squares. (The ratio might be more skewed towards squares in a bigger skydiving market with more jumping and gear replacement). Schools hung on longer due to infrequent replacement of gear and being conservative with students about complexity. You've been out of the sport a little while I guess! Check out gear sites like Para-Gear, Chuting Star, SquareOne to get a feel for all the neat stuff and gadgetry out there.

Would have been Glide Path at the time. Flight Concepts hadn't been invented yet as the successor to Glide Path. That didn't happen until years later. ('94??)