pchapman

I didn't watch the video in detail but it looks like some useful data visualization to those who don't know the numbers. To expand on that, yeah they should get credit for that but they were a bunch of dirty lying stinking commies for all of the Cold War in the eyes of the western democracies. Russians are understandably upset about the lack of credit they get, and people like Putin especially so. I think the issue came up during the events marking the anniversary of the end of WWII in Europe this past may. Putin felt a little snubbed, but there are a variety of reasons for that. Some Russian nationalists have felt that their half-century takeover of Eastern Europe was a just reward for their great suffering in WWII and a necessary buffer against any future external aggression. The western view was more that two wrongs don't make a right. Anyone knowledgeable about WWII has long known about the immense losses and suffering on 'the Eastern front' and don't have anything against the Russian (etc) people. Russia may present it as a defensive move, but they did ally with Hitler to carve up Poland. I don't recall them returning the eastern part of Poland yet? (However a postwar treaty did fix the current borders, just as another treaty fixed the Polish-German border.) So people's feelings about Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR are a bit like when two murderous drug dealers fight and one dies... nobody is really interested in giving the other one a medal for his assistance to society. It is always tough in history to get the appropriate perspective on things. A disaster closer to home is of more importance to oneself, yet one shouldn't forget the global perspective. This applies in tragedies other than warfare too. So here in the US & Canada one might know more about a US earthquake that kills 63 (San Francisco area 1989) than one that kills a bunch of remote people with few cultural and media links to you (250,000-500,000 fatalities, Tangshan China 1976). In any case it does help for people to see stats like in the video to see how the numbers really stack up.

So you're talking about using an aramid, in particular Kevlar if talking about older round reserve canopies like the National Phantom. I am guessing that Kevlar was used because for a given bulk the tape has more strength. Particularly useful when upgrading a canopy without making it much bulkier than it was before. 1/2" wide Kevlar tape as used in skydiving is rated at 550 lbs (MIL-T-87130, Type 1, Class 2 style, according to ParaGear), while it takes 1" wide Type III binding tape to be rated to 525 lbs. I don't know the thicknesses offhand, but both are fairly thin, the Kevlar perhaps thinner. As for weight, Poynters says the maximum allowed ounces per yard is .30 for the 1" nylon, compared to .09 for the 1/2" Kevlar. So again I'm not sure of bulk exactly, while the weight is about one third for a similar strength.

The difficulty these days is to be able to learn a whole bag of tricks, while at the same time larger DZ's become more regimented in their way of doing things, to stay safe with more jumpers in the air. Those two ideas sometimes create conflicts: Hypothetical experienced safety guy: "Skydivers should learn to downwind land a canopy. An important skill for safety and before downsizing. ....But by the way, downwind landings are absolutely prohibited at this DZ! Follow the pattern!" So there is a need to allow practicing things in some manner, with hop and pop loads or small airplane loads only, or separated landing areas, etc.

Maybe you know this, but that now reminds me about Dick Gays and his amazing Slots and Parashapes canopies in England in the 80s: He mentions in http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3776189#3776189 that (Also see another post of his a little earlier in that thread.) I don't know if the rules were different then, or he stretched the definition of "parachute", but he got away with jumping and landing experimental parachutes that way. As you'll see in his photos, he made the cover of BPA's magazine. Anyway, you can ask the BPA how they handled his case.

(Edit: What I'm saying is admittedly similar in tone to what Baumchen and Lee have said but reinforces the point:) Are there any British canopy manufacturers?? I mean, are all sorts of other people in the UK pumping out quality canopies, or are you the only one to build one in the last 5 years? If being snarky with the BPA, instead of coming up with reams of data for them, challenge them first, to come up with all the lists: What are their test pilot qualifications? What are their canopy quality control checkoffs? What list of maneuvers or testing must be accomplished to 'qualify' a main canopy? So while the BPA has a bunch of rules on all sorts of stuff, do they actually have standards in this case or just a vague feeling of unease? If they can't just go print off Form #XB258-1 or whatever with the required information, they don't have shit to say about canopy testing.

I find mild S-turns useful when doing tandems, even if my DZO disagrees, for getting accurate landings by the camera flyer. In that situation one is down to being in the air only with a few other similar speed, slow canopies. (On the occasion that one is on final at the same time as another tandem, then of course one flies straighter.)(Do the thousands of tandem instructors out there all really only use brakes to adjust their final approach, and guess their predicted glide path perfectly at the time they turn onto final??) Since these days in general we are looking to land along a 'runway strip' and not all 'hit the bowl', the need for S-turns is reduced greatly. The function of S-turns is to a large degree taken up by adjusting one's pattern instead. You adjust your circuit with things like slower or tighter downwind to final turns, or extending the base leg, when your guess of where to turn onto base isn't perfect.

Bring in Caitlyn??

FCA: Nice look at definitions relating to deployment methods. I know type 1 and 2 systems as "lines in pack tray" systems (although of course parachutes lines are always somewhere in the pack). (Aside: Around '91 I saw a blown up round reserve with a type 2 diaper, when a line in an old rig caught the bent lip of a pack tray grommet, causing an out of sequence deployment. Jumper blew a couple panels and lines but was Ok.) For anyone interested: As for getting more articles/presentations from that series on round parachute design & deployment from 2005, see: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/ippw03_short_course.cfm which is part of their archives on International Planetary Probe Workshops https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/ippw.cfm

To briefly expand on what I wrote, I agree that the correlation can be weak. On some rigs the geometry does seem to be particularly favourable, so even when it took a lot of work to close the last flap, the pin starts sliding at 17 lbs. I do use a torquing device however, where it is a matter of feel as to what is still reasonable vs. a ridiculous amount of pressure. The torquing device does allow for packing tighter, easier... but shouldn't be used as a crutch for poor technique and not "working" the pack job better early on, and then just using force to get the pin in the last flap...

Thanks for bringing this up. I haven't collected and data on this sort of thing, but did notice the pull force went up on a rig I intalled a Spectra ripcord on. Even just having one of those thick, squarish reserve pins seems to make the pull force high for a given apparent tightness of the reserve loop. (The Vector pin designs have varied in design over the years) Then combining those factors with the tightness expected of rigs now, it makes for slightly awkward pull forces. One sometimes gets that on other rigs too, where the pull force does seem to be just sort of a still legal 22.00 lbs, "at least I thought the pin moved a teensy bit at that point, or at least it should will be a realistic 22 lbs after sitting 24 hours but I have to hand this rig back soon .... or maybe it will be 22 if I walk in place on the reserve for a few minutes and test right afterwards ... and I used the same loop length as the rig has always had". That being said, one sometimes does build an overly-ambitious tight loop that is a struggle to close (on any rig), giving a high pull force that suggests one might as well just go back and put a slightly longer loop in, for the benefit of everyone in the long term. I've found Wings can also have a bit of a pull force issue because so much of the cable is dragging not metal on metal but dragging on fabric as it goes around the shoulder.

Regarding Wings' reserve PCs, I haven't heard of all the fabric being moved out of the coils. But I have "heard of" a little bit of the fabric being let loose into that pocket area at the top, to slightly reduce the bulk between the coils. Not sure how much it helps.

To address your comment to Gowler, one local DZO was worried sufficiently to switch to half Cypres, half Vigil for his tandem rigs in case of a recall or grounding. After all, he had a number of Vigils have that problem with freezing on bootup (before a certain version), he had Cypres' that had to be given an extra button push to confirm they hadn't locked up, and there was that bulletin on a before-the-next-jump inspection of Vigil cutters because of one missing blade. So yeah you never know what might happen with AAD bulletins, even if we feel that the major players have pretty decent production control going.

Usually even the cheap goggles many DZ's sell are fine --- when new, because their bungee or elastic strap is new and strongly elastic and not stretched out. The beaten up ones sitting around for the tandem schmucks may not be in the best condition. Although it is also possible that a particular brand doesn't fit your face. As for helmets with visors -- full face helmets - there are some instructors and jurisdictions don't want that at all for students, as it can add complications. On the other hand, just using goggles and an open face helmet has complications too as you found out. If the DZ doesn't have a new pair of goggles that fits well, be friendly and ask around the DZ to see if regular jumpers have goggles that fit well and snug up well, to give you an idea of what to order.

Whatever the minor arguments going on about who knows what about Phantoms, which few know about in the first place, the subject caught my interest. (And that's interesting Lee about why the diaper change was made.) Here are the most important parts of the two early National Phantom bulletins, that may be hard to find but are preserved in the CSPA's early technical bulletin system:

Very briefly, some of the stats around for years might show something like 1 in 700 to 1 in 1000. Also depends on whether one is talking about the canopy itself, the canopy system (eg, adding popped toggles), the whole main deployment (eg, hard pull). Of course that is an average across many types of canopies and many jumpers. You'll always get the guy who did 3000 jumps without a mal, while if you miss certain important things during your pack job, you might make your next jump a mal.

Hmm good point. One would have to look that up. But might that not apply to certificated, semi-permanently installed stuff only? We all know how you can't in effect bolt something uncertified like an instrument to the instrument panel of your certified aircraft.. but you can velcro it on, stick it on your dash, etc. Like with GPS's. Surely you can get in the airplane wearing a pair of jeans (not aircraft certified) that you washed in warm water, while the label clearly states to wash in cold water only. As for parachutes for pilots, I was indeed making the point that there are no federal rules. As we both say, it is when you are participate in events by voluntary sporting bodies like the Soaring Association of Canada that you will almost certainly be required to have a properly packed emergency parachute. (And @JWest, yes I'm talking about Canada specifically in this discussion with RiggerRob, partially because there are a few places where the rules surprisingly differ a lot from the US.)

That was the answer I was looking for when I mentioned not knowing what the life limit was. Whoah, hang on! While I respect Rob's opinion and he may be right that some of that old stuff is old crappy stuff, I dispute that Phantoms over 20 years are grounded. I have not found any manual for the Phantom series of skydiving reserves that says that. (They are rather scarce actually, the old manuals! If someone has a decent one, please share.) There are in contrast newer manuals available from National only for the "NATIONAL 360 / NATIONAL 425 / NATIONAL 490 / NATIONAL FLAT". This is for their emergency rigs as a whole, not for the Phantom alone. (The only mention of Phantom 24 etc in the manual is a single mention of the name of the parachute packed in these rigs.) We already know from prior rigging discussions that the manufacturer cannot impose a life on a parachute if it wasn't part of their original certification / manual. (Edit: with some uncertainty about whether adding it to the manual makes it apply to anything sold from that day onwards). And even their emergency rig manual says You can interpret that as a strict limitation or as "an opinion" for their emergency rigs. If Rob bugged me about that I'd probably admit most riggers would probably call their opinion of a maximum life to be the maximum life. If you personally don't like 20+ year old Phantoms, ok. As for GQ Security, they do have life limits on their newer certified emergency parachutes (10-15 years -- and they even ground their emergency rigs after a single emergency deployment!) But I have statements from that UK company that they are a new company and have no responsibility or control over anything the old GQ Security made in the USA for skydivers years ago. I've also seen a manual from them about the GQ Security 350 Mk2 which applied a life to their newer ones but not to the original 350. In response to both my and another person's inquiries, when asked, GQ in the UK wrote (in the mid 2000s) that the US regs have a rigger recertify a canopy each time. However, they consider the life of a canopy to be 10-15 years, and would assume no liability for a canopy used for longer. (It is often something like 10 years but with a factory inspection extending it to 15.) In other words, their new limitations don't technically apply to the old gear, even if they entirely distance themselves from the old stuff. This stuff on GQ Security canopies was hashed out in threads here on dz.com in 2006, 2007, and 2008, my file on the GQ Security shows.

Really? If you can help find the relevant parts that would be interesting. I've been looking at CARs for years but it is easy to miss stuff despite being able to do electronic searches. I thought you could conduct private parachuting operations without involvement of CSPA etc. There are just a few federal rules on actual parachute jumps. So if you fly with a buddy in their plane and don't pay them and take the door off and that's in the aircraft manual and you jump into a buddy's farm field.... as long as you meet the airspace rules there's very little else limiting you. And you know that when something isn't in the rules, it can be permitted: Parachutes for pilots? There are almost no federal rules on them, which surprises many. You can go fly aerobatics with something packed 20 years ago. (Although maybe not in a contest because the organization involved won't allow it). Not so in the US. Building skydiver rigs? No TSO requirements, nothing in the rules -- but it is permitted to build them and jump them. As has been done by various Canadian skydiving companies over the years. Now it is possible that there are things not to be found in the regular rules that still limit jumps. Maybe you know more about that. Such as, will TC actually provide an operating certificate that doesn't require adherence to one of the established parachuting organizations? Or would that only apply if applying for a parachuting school? The CARs in sections on part 702 Aerial Work, which is the one that includes skydiving, lists things that need to be be in your operations manual, but not the details. For example Standard 722 point something says that for a commercial parachuting operation, the operations manual must include "(j) parachute jumping procedures for day and night VFR operations." Doesn't say whose rules though, as long as you have some. Now if you can tell me from experience that TC would never approve a manual that doesn't mention CSPA / USPA / CAPS, well that's something I can't learn by reading the rules.

As I said, so far we had JWest find a loophole, but warned: Voila, what you dug up mxk is perfect -- those neatly cover the loophole in the FAA's language. One does often have to work through multiple rules to find the full meaning of the rules. What you found also provides an important link between the "it's just advisory" AC105 and an FAR that specifically refers to it and gives it more weight. Edit: So where we are now at, is that whether or not the FAA screwed up when rewriting the rules to include tandems, or wrote it in a misleading way that might seem to allow single parachute operations, there is no loophole in the rules as a whole. The normal dual parachute stuff continues to apply.

So the conclusion we have so far is: JWest is correct. The FAA screwed up their wording so that single harness, single canopy systems are not excluded from jumping. Just that IF you have two parachutes, one has to be an approved reserve and the harness has to be certified. FAA advisory material may say differently. And maybe some other FAR can be found that prohibits it, but nobody here has found such language yet. And maybe you'd have a tough time with lawyers. Looks like a golden opportunity to go jump single canopy systems, although they couldn't be done as part of USPA jump operations. What are Lodi's policies?

And then sat there for the next 27 years or so without getting a wash. Riggers might be eager to attack it with pull test clamps and see how it fares now! And a Phantom 22 is even in the Low Speed category of C23b, not exactly the toughest of reserve categories, with National preferring a gross weight of 155 lbs max. So the pool of eligible users gets pretty small.

Haha, I jumped with a similar but smaller multi-directional VR camera gadget a couple years ago, the bubl cam, to get some promotional video for the company. Come to think of it, despite the "ball on a stalk" appearance, it might not be as snaggy than a boxy GoPro... (Attached: a messy exit wearing the camera).

I'm surprised more people don't try to take advantage of it because it is technically legal in Canada... but not through the CSPA. National law doesn't stop it, since some of the typical skydiving rules here are only through the CSPA (or USPA) and not through Transport Canada, our equivalent of the FAA. Same goes for exit and opening altitude rules -- there are no national laws! Many of us have heard of BASE-gear jumpers exiting from ultralight aircraft, powered and unpowered paragliders, and so on, especially in Europe where it is sometimes legal, while in the USA the FAA are way behind the times in allowing any of that sort of fun. The problem with Canadian 1-parachute operations is that most jump planes are owned by DZOs who are in the CSPA or USPA and will generally want to avoid the issue. But one could theoretically rent a jump plane and do BASE rig jumps somewhere interesting. (I have however seen a DZO's rental agreement specify that jumps be done under CSPA rules.) I'm not hopeful that a DZO would advertise to US and Canadian BASE jumpers to come on up and offer them special rates for 1000' passes over the DZ -- with the DZO designating particular loads to be ones conducted outside of his role as a CSPA dropzone operator. It would be a little odd, as if a USPA DZ were saying that a particular load were not a USPA load and thus the jumpers were not following USPA rules, only FAA ones. (Who knows, I could be missing some snag that I don't know about, some interplay between company operations manuals and Transport Canada operating certificates and who knows what, but I don't know of any such thing. )

Hang on, does McMaster Carr now ship to Canada? For years they didn't so Canadians hated them, especially when Americans talked about how good they were. Or at least they didn't without a business account or business address or something. In any case there was some hassle involved and a really quick Google search hasn't clarified for me what the current situation is. Different people report different things.

I have heard of non-avian crap falling from the skies in the past, when outlet valves leaked or were stuck or something. But it would normally be all mixed up with the blue toilet tank fluid. And if it unstuck after descending from high altitude it would be frozen. Good old blue ice from the sky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_ice_%28precipitation%29