pchapman

Air France flight 8969 They landed to refuel in Marseille and the GIGN evntually stormed the aircraft including the cockpit in a shootout captured on video. When "9/11 happened" I was just at work in an office near Toronto. When someone announced the event from checking news online early in the work day, I thought it might have been a small aircraft (and I mentioned that a B-25 in WWII didn't do all that much damage) but it soon became obvious it was more that just that. We basically got to head home in early afternoon. A few things came to mind: -- A quote from the movie Aliens, "Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked, pal! " -- Things like the 1993 tower attacks and the Pacific airliner plot in the mid 1990s - Stuff that didn't get much talked about once the immediate news cycle ended, and so left the uninformed puzzling over just what the conclusions were as to what it was all about. -- I also thought that now Americans might start realizing that their actions in the world have consequences for themselves and not just others. I was a little naive on that point, as the following decade would show. Bad things don't just happen in shitty places far off in across the planet.

Well the lesson can be that you can't let your guard down with airplanes. Reminds me of something I heard about a similar sized plane -- something to the effect that a Piper Cub may be a dinky little airplane, but it is still big enough to kill you, just like any of the rest... Too bad Mayfield never got online to tell his stories!

I do sometimes run with an idea almost too far. It's certainly not the final answer -- after all, people like skydivesg experienced that time in skydiving when I didn't -- but it is interesting to dig into how terms were used at different times. (Heck I've had a newer jumper ask me what an older jumper was talking about when he mentioned 'swooping' in freefall. He only knew it as something you did when landing.)

I wasn't really in the sport at the time, but it may well be true that the generic term "sweet spot" got used pretty early when people were getting into the first small canopies (some in F-111) and then especially when ZP canopies started appearing. I did some googling, including of the Google Groups rec.skydiving archive. What I found in some short searches only covers what people wrote down and put on the web, not what people may have been talking about at the DZ. The term was used online relatively little, and not until the late 1990s for a 2 stage flare. The earliest reference to a flare of any type I saw online is from June 1997: [Ben Chea 19/06/1997 rec.skydiving] But there the term was applied to what is more of a one stage flare canopy, an F-111 style canopy. Sweet spot shows up in "The Canopy Pilot's Handbook", Bryan Burke, Skydive Arizona July 1997, but while many must have read that booklet, the term was in reference to flaring the right amount at the right time in different wind conditions -- not about 2 stage flares. The first time I can find a reference to the sweet spot of a 2 stage flare is on 20/08/1998, about a test jump on an Icarus Omega 175. The author is just shown as "Al" and "big...@ernest.phys.cmu.edu" "Sweet spot" was used in earlier years as a generic term that could be applied to different things in skydiving -- for the crazy idea of a skyboarder landing on a ski slope [Daniel Briggs 1992], for a good spot [Darin Ninness 1996], for the right brake line slack on a Stiletto [Nick from the Perris ghetto, 1997], and best wing loading [Bill von Novak 1998].

According to one TV show, I hear it is full of zombies. At least we have one point of agreement.

And it takes no time at all to read the responses to those questions on Snopes. Come on, really? The word Keyna was used for decades before it gained independence. And the form I saw doesn't mention Obama's race, just that his dad is "African" and mom "Caucasian". I don't know how anyone could still get excited about some ancient right wing nutcase email still making the rounds. Any intelligent right wing nutter should at least have some more subtle and interesting questions if they're going to continue on that line of questioning.

Mxk, you have a point that Vigil has to some degree reduced the warning about open doors. The Vigil II manual, applying to the vast majority of Vigils in service, still says While the Vigil 2+ only refers to Student mode: There is no indication of what they may have done to improve the system. The warnings about travelling in a closed vehicle remain for the Vigil 2+ much like they were for the Vigil II. As for the tradeoff between accuracy and time, yes that makes sense, time is generally needed to see whether a given pressure change is a high frequency pulse or something repeatable. According to all their graphs, Vigil just needs, what is it, 5 readings at 1/8th second intervals to decide it should fire. For Cypres we don't know, but they claim to use more parameters. (Not more sensors, just more computed parameters.) Vigil also has their computed time to firing that they sometimes mention -- but I'm not sure how that really figures in to things. Even if an AAD took a second to decide, that's no problem on a regular jump when the decision could be made as the jumper approaches firing altitude. If you want to argue that's a problem with a low chop or low bailout, sure. Indeed, we know that if we have a Cypres we run a risk if we don't or can't pull after a bailout before the plane climbed through 1500' to arm it (3000' for tandems). We can differ on whether it is safer to to have a Vigil II that is armed after 150 ft but might very rarely fire if the door pops low on a small aircraft. Do we know how Cypres might fare if it actually armed below its activation altitude and then we went around in small planes popping doors open? No we don't.

Have there been any recent Vigil "trunk activations" lately? That's a valid question you bring up -- the cases I remember hearing about are indeed old ones. Well, except the rigger I know who popped a Vigil II on the ground a few years back, when he wrapped a rig in a sturdy plastic bag, twisted up the the mouth of the bag, and gave the bag a squeeze to get some air out. Somehow that Vigil thought it had gone on an airplane ride and then saw a sudden pressure increase. (Normally you need a mechanical FXC 1200 if you want an AAD to act that dumb!) On the other hand, Vigil never made any announcements about ever improving on the ground firing problem, and continue in the manuals to insist on having the device turned off before transporting it in a closed vehicle. Horse drawn buggies are presumably OK.

Any idea roughly about the time or altitude to deal with the reserve twists specifically, or the number of twists? Reserve line twists are usually not an serious problem even if they sometimes happen from RSL or MARD use, but very occasionally they can be bad enough to take up a lot of altitude to fix. As for you not noticing the lack of stitching in the risers, technically you missed seeing it, but it is understandable. When you get handed a set of risers and canopy you expect them to be in jumpable condition -- it isn't as if you were sending a newly purchased canopy to your rigger for a full inspection just in case. The lack of stitching wouldn't be that obvious in this particular case. Looks like it was on the front riser, and would be entirely or nearly entirely hidden underneath the dive loop, black stitching on navy blue risers. Not at all obvious if one lays out the canopy for to hook it up and pack it.

I've recommended the idea of jumpers each doing a realistic self-evaluation. It's always easy to hear about someone else's problem and laugh at some other guy for being a dumbass, but it takes more thought to examine one's own actions. Not just about cases where something ended up going wrong, but anything that was a close call or nearly a problem. Sometimes those things stick with you ("Luckily it worked out; I won't do THAT again!") but in other cases there's no bad result and pretty soon you forget that you did something dumb or at least not as good as you might have. Then figure out what the chain of events and circumstances were that led to the issue, without minimizing one's own role. So one might think for example, "I had a safe season other than the one time I was trying to show off with that impromptu little swoop and sprained my ankle. .... But, hmm, thinking about it some more there were a couple other times I rushed the swoop setup and tried to make it work. And there were a couple bad PC tosses in a wingsuit -- I have to focus on cleaner throws. And I've got to watch out for XXXX, I've gotten sloppy with that. And really, I'm not all that current for YYYY -- there were a couple jumps I might better have taken myself off and done a smaller jump for practice instead." This idea fits with the concept that for X number of fatalities there might be 10X accidents, and 100X incidents or close calls -- or whatever the multiplier number might be. Look for the little things to avoid the bigger things happening some day.

And on torrents. Some reviews said the documentary wasn't that great, eg, http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/30-30-angry-sky-223148. But it'll still be interesting for its historical value.

I'm also wondering whatever happened to Chris Stephen and Canadian Aerosports. I know the web page is still up (although seemingly largely unchanged since 2012). I thought I read somewhere (CSPA Canapara magazine?) a few years ago that he had stopped building parachutes, but am not sure. Out here in Ontario one never heard much about the company, although in the late 90s a few of his canopies and rigs were around. Hopefully he's still contactable. Otherwise, one might have to find some BC jumper who has been around a long time. In the end though, it seems very very likely that it is a nearly unknown Hurricane 170 from what must be Canadian Aerosports, like BrianM figured at the start. (Or from Parachutes Canada I think was the company name Chris Stephen used earlier.) I can't think of any other Canadian company that would have produced a canopy with a name like that. Not Westway, not ParaFab. Nobody else in Canada built sport canopies around that time that I ever remember hearing about. Last minute addition: Doing a web search I found a paragliding site where someone mentioned just this March that Stephen was relocating from Mission BC to nearby Matsqui BC and gave this address: [Edit: not 2008 as I first wrote after misreading the post] 5835 Riverside Street Matsqui Village 604-820-8258 But Matsqui is an outlying part of Abbotsford BC if one is googling the location.

While I can't speak for manufacturers, when one has a medium to large sized main, the tendency is indeed to have a rig fit a slightly smaller reserve. You don't use the reserve a lot so a little extra risk is considered ok. And to some degree the market on average likes to keep rig size down. Yes one could counter those arguments and say that when you need your reserve, you may be injured or dazed and low over bad terrain, and that's when extra square footage would be handy. In the old days of round reserves, that reserve usually would be smaller and harder landing than main round canopy and certainly so compared to a newfangled square main. You didn't expect to have a nice landing, but you'd be alive and probably nothing broken. (And fewer dz's were surrounded by built up areas.) Who knows, maybe a little of that philosophy kept on going even while reserves got better. Your point #2 about reserve age doesn't really apply. However, it would be true that few of us use F-111 style mains, but that's normal for reserves, and their performance is reasonable since they don't have many jumps on them. (Reserve performance is more a factor of design with newer designs handling better at high wing loadings. At low loadings it doesn't matter nearly as much.)

Yes, 99.9% of the time in normal situations ... assuming you don't have totally incompatible rings (big rings on risers, small on harness) ... assuming it isn't a rare case when putting Aerodyne's long rings on a rig with cutaway housings which happen to have little stretch built into the system ... assuming it isn't a weird case like reversed rings from PdF or the early 1990s which some rig companies don't like ... assuming you don't have crappy toggle stowage on the risers combined with crappy riser covers Those are not the typical situations these days. The only big incompatibility issue these days is RSL / MARD connections -- if you want to use one, the risers have to have the ring on the correct side.

I don't know the circumstances but if you're hand propping without a tiedown or qualified person in the cockpit, that's not considered good practice at all. In other words, running something shoddily / on the cheap / casually / really old school finally killed him rather than someone else. Karma? (That being said I don't know his full story and many jumpers must have benefited from the skydiving operations he ran. Must have been quite a character whether one liked him or not. I might have a biased opinion just from the news reports and some of the stories. BSBD)

The good old AAD wars. Yes, Airtec were very arrogant when it came to the issue of 'you can't set it off in a swoop' and Adrian Nicholas' death. But that was a long time ago and they started paying attention to swoop speeds. But is that any more arrogant than saying that if you drive down a hill or slam a car door or let the aircraft door pop open while climbing, your Vigil might pop.... and that's really just your fault so no product improvements are really needed? That being said, I have heard that Airtec is still tougher to work with at a professional level, less willing to be flexible to worth with others -- according to a poster involved in tests with special AAD requirements for forestry jumpers. I'm not sure Vigil (A.A.D.) is all that much better after an incident: Airtec: "Yup it worked as it should. It fired at X speed and Y altitude. Trust us." Vigil: "Yup it worked as it should and here's a graph. See, it fired at X speed and Y altitude." For example, I downloaded from dz.com the Vigil firing graph from the 2010 Colorado incident where it inadvertently fired when the door opened on climbout. That is indeed nice for transparency... but the AAD still fired at a dumb time.

For the thread: Although the dive target depth of 1200' wasn't a huge amount above the world record of 1089', the diver's own prior deepest dive was 800'. That's a huge 50% leap in one single dive, in an environment that is very demanding physically, where individual reactions and tolerance may vary. Other divers criticized him for that massive jump in attempted depth.

Okay, I guess we've both had our say. While I might sometimes try to steer newbies clear of your advice (at least without further explanation), your advice tends to have a certain admirable yet brutal old school charm to it, from the days when "Don't fuck it up... or else pay the consequences" was valid skydiving instruction.

Man, you're just looking for controversy! While your idea has certain merit in very specific circumstances, I don't think it applies here. The OP is at 1.25 loading on a Sabre 170, so should be able to get a decent flare out of the canopy. It isn't like some 120 lb girl at 0.7 wing loading on a student canopy, who downsizes to 1.0 loading. That's the sort of case where a jumper gets a better flare because of gaining decent energy to plane out, that doesn't require perfect timing. Plus the OP was having problems slowing down the touchdown, not turning the corner in the first part of the flare.

Just be aware that the gear, depending on the age, might be worth something, or might be worth almost nothing -- just a few hundred bucks to the rare experienced jumper who knows about old stuff and wants it for its novelty. You could also upload a couple photos here. One wouldn't know what the main canopy is without unpacking the rig, but one would get some idea of what era and style of gear we're talking about. Information about the reserve parachute would be on a packing card hidden on the rig.

As for flare height in windy conditions: I'm not sure there's any accepted theory on this, but mine is that the flare height should be pretty much the same as normal -- or slightly less if doing a faster flare. You "need less flare" when landing into stronger winds, but the canopy still has to plane out, and that will take the same amount of time and vertical distance as usual. It is only the planed out part that doesn't need to take as much time as one doesn't have to kill as much horizontal ground speed. Minor possible change to flare height: During the plane out one may be allowing oneself to descend very slightly if leaving a margin for error on the initial flare (eg, plan to plane out 2 ft up if uncertain of one's flare), so if one is using less plane out time, one would want to plane out a bit lower and thus start the whole flare a tiny bit lower. The exception to flaring at essentially the same height is with very strong winds or slow canopies, where a standard slow gradual flare might slow one down too much and end up landing backwards. In that case, a sharp, aggressive flare can plane the canopy out from a lower altitude and still retain enough airspeed to touch down going forwards. So overall: Unless your perception of height is messed up by different ground speed (which is possible too), basically just flare at the normal height in strong winds.

Edited to highlight the sections: THE SHORT QUESTION: Since the issue is still being debated, then I have to respectfully ask, "Who says? Under what authority? And what are ya gonna do about it? " THE LONGWINDED DISCUSSION: From reading FAR 1054.5 on tandem parachute systems, the language doesn't make clear but implies that it only applies to two people parachuting together. It only refers to two person operation, so it seems (without me looking up FAA definitions) that it applies to tandem jumps, not solo jumps on rigs certified for tandems. This seems to match what you are saying: that you speak only for UPT gear, not in general in the USA. So in what way is the answer "no"? You imply it is somehow a UPT rule? And how does it have any legal bearing on anything? Or can they start denying tandem ratings to whomever they feel like? Do they have any power over owners of their rigs who are not the actual tandem instructors? Why does it have to be part of a course as opposed to instruction from a buddy who is a tandem IE? (Or maybe that is in effect a course if run properly although not a formal course.) And why would the 3 yrs / 500 freefalls apply? It doesn't for the FAA. Is a UPT rated IE somehow obligated to follow certain rules by UPT on who they train -- to jump a tandem rig, not to take to full certification? Leaving aside the FAA and manufacturers now, is there any USPA rule that prohibits grabbing a tandem rig and jumping solo? For example in a SIM section on tandems that mostly involves tandem jumps, it also mentions tandem equipment specifically: (It's in 2-1.F.4.c if I got the messy numbering right.) This suggests that if you are being trained, it has to be by a properly rated individual, but not that it has to be part of a structured course. And it doesn't actually say you have to be trained at all (which I wouldn't recommend). Yet other rules might require other things. I don't know the US rules but haven't yet seen anything requiring anyone to be trained on anything. In contrast, the CSPA has some generic rule that you must be adequately trained on whatever you jump. So that would suggest it would be prudent to be trained by someone who has been a tandem instructor / examiner. Still, nobody gets kicked out of the organization because they never learned to assemble their 3-rings right. So there are many questions that can be applied to the answers so far in this thread, to precisely define under what authority and under what penalty, the FAA, USPA, or rig manufacturers may prohibit a certain thing.

Plenty of time winds are too high for students but OK for tandems and experienced jumpers. If you aren't interested in working on those kind of basic skills that make you safe to skydive with other people, then skydiving isn't for you. Getting the different jumpsuits for different skydiving activities can be expensive although there are ways to save -- one doesn't usually need the latest greatest jumpsuits to participate in a discipline. Good for you that you aren't one of those super nervous students. But if you need more excitement, try russian roulette or maybe just getting deployed to some hellhole spot in the world. I find bicycling downtown is sometimes more exciting than a skydive, but I prefer the environment, the control, and the skills practice in skydiving. One isn't supposed to be close to crashing every moment of a skydive. But as for your dislike of some DZ's customer service, egos in the sport, occasional cliquishness, lack of interest of DZ's and instructors in low paying work with students instead of chasing the tandem dollar.... I can't disagree with you there. Those are common problems in the industry. It's almost like some hazing or rite of passage to be able to make it through those long tedious days as a student when one is lucky to get one jump or have anyone give a damn about you. Good luck with whatever you choose to do in your life.

You'd recommend a Katana to a low-time jumper? Hmm, maybe the difference of opinions can be brought closer together if considering wing loadings?? After all, PD does show suggested weights for "Student" category jumpers on Storms -- but only for the biggest sizes, 190 to 230. And "Novices" are good for 1:1 on Storms according to PD's chart. A Katana in contrast, lists Not Recommended for anything less than "Advanced". Yet perhaps at non-light wing loadings the descent rate starts to be more difficult for newer jumpers to handle, when flaring? Even if the Storm isn't very sensitive to small turn inputs and is 'docile' in that sense. (And, lyosha, I'd say the Storm has a steep trim angle, rather than 'angle of attack', preferring to reserve the latter term for its original aerodynamics & engineering meaning.) I haven't even jumped a Storm so can't comment on actual flight characteristics, nor have I yet searched out other threads on Storms as DSE suggested, so my knowledge is limited. [Edit: And now I've seen a thread where it is suggested that the slightly different CF Storms at 1.9-2.1 loading are tough to get decent landings on. But again, that particular characteristic is strongly influenced by wing loading.]

She adds a bit of science by adding formal terminology for the phenomenon. But there's a little much extraneous stuff for my taste -- drifting off into paragliders in a way that doesn't enhance the skydiver's understanding of landing accuracy. And I don't like the uncritical evaluation of the 'target fixation' idea, which I think is sometimes true, but not always or universally. If one is trying to swoop one's wing past a pole, one can't focus on a point in space 15' away from the pole, but one focuses on the pole and estimates the distance one needs to fly off to the side. But that's another topic. Her pieces seem to "try too hard" to sound 'well written', with condescending sounding jokiness, when it is the balance of informational content that needs to be focused on more. I'll grant that writing technical articles for skydivers is very tough, and there's always personal preference in writing style, but I saw the same in her How Density Affects Your Destiny and Stalling for Success. Too much fancy writing with not enough clearly presented balanced, factual content.