pchapman

As long as one appeases the gods by doing the magic flaking and folding rituals! For example, don't forget about the slider god ... she gets vengeful if it isn't quartered and against the stops!

For the benefit of the OP, that's a little harsh. Most first jump courses skip the advanced aerodynamics lectures when showing the basic parts of the parachute and how they work. Maybe you've got very different standards where you are, but I'd expect either that nothing is said about brake settings at all (just that you are supposed to grab the toggles and what to do with them), or to briefly mention that the tail is pulled down at the start to "improve the opening".

That's hilarious. One of those things that looks like trolling but is an honest question from a newbie. The problem is with analog, mechanical altimeters. Since they have no electronics to look for a near constant pressure level that indicates it is likely at ground level at your current elevation above sea level and use that instead of an assumed sea level pressure, they need to use trained fleas running on a little wheel to set it. When the alti is boxed up for shipment, the lack of oxygen after a while can make them drowsy or knock them right out. Call the people who sold you the alti and demand a packet of new fleas, wrapped in breathable paper not plastic. Don't take no for an answer! Non-electronic gadgets can fool the modern generation. It's like trying out an old typewriter to print something out, and then looking for the buttons to save the document or print out 5 more copies. That reminds me, I did have a nervous tandem student once who kept adjusting her altimeter to zero on the way up in the plane, so that it would stay looking the way I had set it for her on the ground. Anyway, newbies do get a little ribbing from time to time. Welcome to skydiving and have fun.

Since I'm trying to put off working for a few minutes, I'll have a go: What to do? Duh, go jump again. You'll get better. Lots of threads out there by nervous students looking for help. You jumped, you lived, the instructors were there to help out with body position and your pull. That's their job, that's why they are there. Sure, they're going to be a little disappointed when someone couldn't follow all the stuff they taught and the jump kinda sucked. Yet they should also be supportive. You're a student, you're expected to screw up, and you'll get better. Remember that plenty of others have gone through the same process. Everyone has a first jump. Everyone has jumps that didn't meet all the hoped for goals. Some places even like having an AFF student do another style of jump for their first jump, despite the cost, in order to make that first AFF jump a little less overwhelming. Like you said, don't quit. That's part of skydiving, overcoming your fear. Accept that. Next time it'll be less overwhelming. There are relaxation techniques out there, tips to get more relaxed on the ride up. Some students have issues with 'the door monster' -- the plane ride is OK and freefall is OK but the transition from one to the other is the scariest part. Everyone has issues with something, whether body position awareness, freefall control, recall of planned actions, etc. (And someone else can chip in with the URL for the skydiving duck cartoon, please.)

I'm no tandem IE or course conductor, so I don't know for sure, but the impression I have always gotten is that you have to do the tandem course to jump a tandem rig. You might not need to finish the course, but you'd have to be in a course and under the proper supervision to at least get to the point of a solo jump with tandem equipment. It's probably because the tandem companies are anal and fearful and make owners sign agreements about how to use the rigs and enforce standards of ratings. Normally that wouldn't matter with some other equipment -- PD can't stop you from jumping a Velo 79 with 100 jumps, and one can often ignore bullshit fine print in sales contracts. But since there's so much money involved in tandems, it might be tough to get around. A DZ owning rigs doesn't want their authority to conduct tandems pulled because they didn't follow the rules. It is curious because technically one could separate tandem commercial operations from tandem rigs being used just for fun, so the stricter rules applying to one shouldn't necessarily apply to the other. I've seen (and benefited from) a DZ renting out their tandem gear on a very limited basis to experienced instructors for fun / silly / stunt stuff by licensed jumpers that totally contravene all those silly tandem rules, but there's no way they would have handed over the gear to a non-tandem-instructor. (Tandem rigs converted to have regular handles and operate more conventionally as big boy rigs have been used by non-tandem-instructors. Not sure of manufacturers' involvement in that. Also, no cutaway is required to get the tandem rating for UPT rigs. That's just been a Strong thing.)

And on a lighter (?) note, think about what would have happened had the US not dropped the bombs: Commies would have been claiming for the decades of the Cold War that they had also won the Pacific part of World War Two. Although I'm shaky on the details, I figure Japan would have given up without a full invasion, with just the atomic bombs dropped, or with the realization of the implications of the Soviet Union joining the war. Either would have done the job but at least with the bomb, the US can legitimately claim to have driven their enemy to surrender, from its actions from the beginning to the end of the war.

I'm hesitant to enter a discussion such as this because so much has been argued before, by smarter people, and because one really needs to personally know a lot of the background information on who knew what and when. But here goes: As I see it, some of those in Japan with influence were wanting to get out of the war. But "thinking about giving up" or "wanting to give up" or "probably will give up in the near future" are not the same as actually giving up. You were allowed to hit your enemy and hit them hard until the moment they actually surrendered. The US's (and allies') insistence on unconditional surrender may have been a reasonable one, although perhaps flawed in retrospect. Such a measure tries to avoid delaying tactics in negotiation, but also may force an enemy to hold out longer to the bitter end. The US might have better picked up on the cues before war's end to offer an olive branch (allowing Japan to keep a non-divine emperor), but it is not wrong to have been imperfect. Before the bombs dropped, some scientists and others moralized about and and questioned the future issues with atomic weaponry. Other, such as many in the military, were in the business of killing the enemy with whatever "legitimate" weapons they had at hand. The US did reject the idea of using the bomb on a non-populated test target, but it was a possibility that was at least examined. Was the bomb used as a signal to the Soviet Union? Sure. Were the bomb targets carefully picked to be able to use as "test cases" on largely undamaged cities? Sure. Do I believe that many in the US have often had a simplistic and biased view of history and their own morality, which has at times had a negative influence on the world in the last century? Yes. But none of this changes the use of the bomb being legitimate in my eyes. The US was in a struggle with an enemy that had not given up yet. The US had already been firebombing and destroying large swaths of Japanese cities, through an impressive industrial-military effort. The US now had a new, stronger weapon. It was war, the enemy hadn't surrendered, and so the US used that new weapon. Largely, that's the end of the story. So the American use of 'the bomb' may not have been nice or good or absolutely necessary but it was legitimate in my eyes. P.S.-- Americans, thanks for not being too fast in developing the bomb. My mom survived the Dresden bombing in Feb 1945. Bad enough with conventional weaponry. Again, it was bad, nasty, not absolutely necessary... but legitimate.

Yes as rasmack is saying, he isn't the one doubting using throwouts for students, but he wants more ammunition to defend it. Heck, you can get videos of AFF students doing that sort of thing too. AFF students may be less likely to pull unstable than gradual progression students, but it still happens. There was a time 20+ years ago where Canada had moved to allowing throw out pilot chutes for AFF/PFF style jumps, but when the USPA still insisted on having spring loaded pilot chutes. But the USPA has long ago decided any possible extra risk was acceptable!

Yet at the same time, there must be some bad exits. Whether a static line student has done a few good exits with practice pulls, or an IAD student has done a few good exits with practice pulls, either way, there will be people who get nervous and screw up one of their first freefalls. A 5 second delay is sometimes just enough for them to get over on their back. And since you're supposed to pull when you're supposed to pull, you'll have pilot chute pulls with the jumper on their back rather than ripcord pulls with the jumper on their back... I think I have a grainy video somewhere of someone deploying their BOC on their back, after kicking and rolling on their back on one of their first freefalls. These things USUALLY work out OK despite it looking really scary... So I can understand what the original poster is looking for. After all, tandem instructors usually get shown a few scary videos during their training...

Hey Rob I can get back to you in a couple days (when home) if you don't already have an answer for the Talka. Actually one rig is called the Talka, and the reserve it uses is the PZ-81. The PZ-81 is then also found in other rigs, such as belly mounts. But my manual might also be in Cyrillics. It's been about 5 years, but it seemed better than a Paradactyl and a little worse than a Dual Keel Paradactyl to land -- I think its area is somewhere in between too Checking old threads quickly, I see we had the same issue years back -- no translated manual. ...

Modified for steering vents? Some steering line mod? An old timer will know...

Well if someone wants to talk about the Virgin Galactic SpaceShip Two crash and "bailout", then I've been playing around with reading the NTSB reports and commenting on the bailout scenario and parachute system, over in a resurrected Bonfire thread where the accident was once discussed: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4746646#4746646 Then we're talking about the Butler HX-500/24 and the Cypres 2 Aircrew AAD with activation lanyard.

I have since read the Aircrew Cypres 2 manual, which is a bit vague but helps understand things a bit. It does operate differently than a regular Cypres. The Cypres button is just for a ground self test that is a highly recommended procedure but doesn't seem essential for flight. It does not seemingly stay on. It turns on or is "hot" (or "sharp" as used in the manual - probably the original German term) for 14 hours if a velcroed orange cushion is pulled out. Reinserting the cushion and its cable shuts the Cypres off again. It doesn't actually say what kind of a delay there is after pulling the orange cushion, so I don't know if it matched what the NTSB wrote about, 5-7 seconds, or if it might be less. The static line lanyard on the Butler rig would be set up to pull that Cypres cable to turn it on. I'm guessing that because it isn't turned on normally before flight, the activation altitude is therefore just 13000' at normal pressure and temperature conditions above sea level, something suggested by the NTSB reports. It wouldn't calibrate itself to that day's conditions or takeoff level. (And curiously, while the Aircrew AAD still has a 12.5 year limit, maintenance is due only at the 5 and 10 year intervals!) In the previous post I wrote that based on the NTSB info it makes it sound as if the lanyard were pulled at 11,590' ASL, with the Cypres firing soon after once it had done its activation delay. But the firing at 10,870' doesn't quite match the "5-7 second" delay that's also mentioned. So an alternative might be to put more weight on some other statements by Siebold, who admits that he drifted in and out of consciousness and couldn't recollect the exact sequence of events. But he felt like he woke up after the breakup, at a high altitude above the desert, and separated himself from the seat then. His next memory was the canopy openin But what "high altitude" really was is not clear. Was this around 10,000' and the AAD fired just seconds later, or was this up at very high altitude, and he went back unconscious for a long time? I previously suggested the scenario where the lanyard wasn't pulled until near activation altitude, but it is also possible it was pulled at very high altitude. Either way it was critical that Siebold woke up for a short period of time and thought to release the seatbelt.

Finally with the NTSB documents there are more facts out there about the accident. From one of the many docket reports, one called "SURVIVAL FACTORS GROUP CHAIRMAN’S FACTUAL REPORT", it shows the parachuting related items to be: Butler model HX-500/24 (with the 'Sombrero' slider) CYPRES 2 Aircrew (with 10' arming lanyard, and set to a minimum 5-7 sec time delay, activation altitude of 13000' at standard pressure curves, and 35 m/s) The HX-500 has some interesting high speed features in addition to the slider: For Siebold, the vent cap stayed closed and the pilot chute remained attached, consistent with a normal freefall speed activation. There are plenty of interesting details in the reports, but one issue was that Siebold wasn't able to activate the bailout oxygen. It isn't clear whether he was grabbing the right thing, but he tried multiple times. Because of faulty memory and going in and out of consciousness, he doesn't remember exactly at what stage he was doing that. There was an issue that the force needed to activate the oxygen bottle could be 40-50 lbs, which can make it tough for a one handed pull. (His right arm was broken in multiple places, including breaking off the head of the humerus. Sounds like wind flail injuries to me, having the arm wrenched over the side of the seat, as military ejectees sometimes have happen.) The handle on the Butler rig resembled a cutaway handle, in a similar position on the rig. Scaled Composites and Butler Parachute Systems had done some work on reducing the pull forces but there were limitations due to the way the bailout bottles are designed. As for the parachute opening: It is a little unclear how the numbers match up, given the altitudes, speeds, and AAD timer delays listed above. But in any case the crucial thing is that Siebold woke up during freefall and undid his seatbelt, freeing himself from the seat, which would also pull the long lanyard attached to the seat to arm the Cypres. He said he did go back unconscious (or not usefully conscious), and so did not pull the ripcord. The next thing he knew he felt opening shock. The reports make it sound like the 11,590' event was when he separated from the seat and the Cypres was armed. So he wouldn't have had much time to pull the ripcord anyway, as a few seconds later the AAD would fire after a short delay (designed to let a crewmember clear the aircraft and slow down closer to normal freefall speeds). As for ground elevations, Mojave airport some distance away is at 2800', making the deployment somewhere very roughly around 8000' AGL. Photos from an Extra aerobatic aircraft being used as a chase plane show Siebold descending under the parachute. The front cockpit section, without any parts of the stub wings, must have hit the ground at high speed based on the descriptions, with the copilot still strapped in his seat. He was the one who unfortunately turned the feather unlocking handles at just after Mach 0.8, forgetting to wait for Mach 1.4 when the forces on the tails wouldn't prematurely cause the actual 'feathering' to take place. The background as to why the error happened is still a little murky to me and would take some discussion so I won't get into that.

Definitely! A lot of media make it sound like some innocent guy who the cop just shot. But then one watches the video. The motorist held his door closed and started his engine, and a brief struggle ensued. Since the car rolled at some point, it likely was moved into gear. So in the cop's mind, the guy was attempting to escape, and was struggling with him. And the car may even have started moving, thus the "dragged with the car" idea in the cops mind -- even if it was for 2 ft at 1 mph. It is hard to tell from the video, but I could see someone fearing for their life -- someone grabs your arm that's through a car window and starts driving? The cop may have been incredibly hasty to use his gun -- but the motorist was not the total innocent some of the news is portraying. Poorly done by the news media. (And I'm saying this as a slightly left of centre Canadian.) I'm not sure what the penalty should be for struggling with and trying to flee from a cop by car. Probably not to be instantly shot. But it is behaviour that goes beyond just innocent contempt of cop.

And for some variety after all the reports of adult females Cosby likely sexually assaulted, recently I read: [Reuters etc July 22] Wait, WTF? At the Playboy Mansion? I'm not blaming the victim, but what exactly was she doing there? Summer jobs for kids at the Playboy Mansion? Guess I don't really know what the place is all about. Just doesn't sound like an "all ages" venue...

(Replying to the thread in general) I see that in the P-124a Aviator manual, RI does want anyone using the rig to have a "controlled program of instruction" on it, if they aren't already a skydiver with 100 jumps. Instruction is suggested to be from a skydiving instructor or rigger and part of it could include something like the ground school of an FJC. So even the manufacturer does want the rig -- despite the special rigging -- to not just be thrown on the back of whomever is getting a ride in a two seat Pitts. For the four sizes, 179 to 280, their listed gross weights are from 186 to 300 lbs -- giving conservative max wing loadings in the range of 1.04 to 1.07 depending on size. They also impose a 15 year life. (That then gets into the questions about whether it is just part of the manual or actual TSO certification.) (How close to Ravens are the canopies? Are those sizes just relabelled from Raven sizes or actual minor changes in design and shape that affect the old PIA style sizing measurements?)

The thing with skimming the ground with lower legs tucked back, shins just above and parallel to the ground, looks nice when combined with a final pop up and then "extending the landing gear". Cool but rather on the advanced side at your level. As you discovered it isn't much good if there is any doubt about the controlability of the landing. Better to keep those feet forward and partially under you -- in case you do drop down and need to protect your spine, or you do have extra speed and need to slide the landing...

+1 No, literally, plus one. You mean 5+1= 6 RW-6 (I know you know that, but it was too good an opportunity for a cheap rigging joke.

We lurkers appreciate the discussion.

This probably needs another forum, but I wondered about such stuff too. Ok let's adjust the question: So a thunderstorm starts, car windows are open, you're the only person around, so you insert your key and turn it to the Accessory position to use the electrically operated windows. Is the law stupid or smart about that?

Oh yeah, we had a student break his ankle jumping off the 182 mockup's step...

There have indeed been other threads as it is a common issue for newbies with only higher altitude experience to get nervous with their first low jumps. One tip is to think about the time available: 5 seconds out the door is only 366 ft. (Admittedly, after that you're burning altitude faster.) I don't know if you're exiting at 5000' or what, but it means that you have plenty of time, tons of time to legal pull altitudes whether for an experienced jumper or a student. Try calculating it! And carry out the jump one step at a time. It is indeed a mental thing to avoid the thought of "ohmygod imlow ihavetopullrightaway". The thought of pulling doesn't have to interfere with basics like a good chest to wind exit etc, because there's plenty of time for everything.

Better tell the swoopers. You'll get different results when you don't fly boats loaded at less than 1:1. Sorry, are you disputing dthames data collection methods for his own canopy? Or just their applicability to swoop canopies, which aren't the concern of the original poster? Or maybe your use of quotes was messy and you weren't disputing the data itself. @ stayhigh: In 2008 a Canadian jumper died from misuse of brakes on approach, with a regular modern canopy at moderate wing loading. She had only 350 jumps but was a member of a Canadian National Women's team, so must have had some skills and ability to learn. I'm not sure if she went into deep brakes to adjust spacing with a team mate or just to adjust her flight path, but she either stalled it or nearly stalled it, let up too quickly and dove it into the concrete or asphalt. Sure she was a dumbass, but it is a concrete example of getting dead when using deep brakes on approach.

Yup, we already have one here in Ontario, CA, thanks. The other Ontario, CA -- Canada that is. (Just a throwaway comment standing up for the other Ontario, CA.)