pchapman

Good catch on the cutaway cable length vs. RSL side. Sunpath web site: "Using a 3/4" metal tube surrounded by padding" for their Phat Daddy handle I was OK with making cutaway handles bigger and squarer, and with denser foam. Or even putting something like a piece of heavy vinyl tubing or hose inside to help give it grabbable shape. I personally am not a fan of the metal tube style handles, cutaway or reserve, that would jam into my ribs if ever hit or fallen onto. It also gets away from Bill Booth's design concept for keeping cutaway handles light to reduce dislodging.

While heavy, hard-soled boots may provide good ankle support, they are sometimes seen as a concern to instructors, coaches, and later others in the air with you, if you are doing anything other than solo jumps. A boot to the face is worse with an actual boot than with a running shoe. Edit: although I guess the tunnel instructor was OK with whatever boots you were using (I didn't check)

For what it's worth, I started a new Gear & Rigging thread on the whole permeability issue, looking for any data that anyone might have. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view&post=4716155#last

The question occasionally comes up about aging reserve parachutes, not just what the strength loss might be, but what effects there may be in terms of increased permeability of the fabric (from packing or use), and to what degree that affects the opening characteristics compared to when the reserve was TSO'd. Eg, a current discussion on retiring old reserves is at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4716147#4716147 Anyone have actual data on permeability testing or what companies like PD have found from any tests on old reserves or reserves used as demo canopies? I had vaguely heard that some company found that older reserves with a lot of pack jobs didn't open as quickly as when new... but I have no proof of this or any information on the magnitude of any effect. The point has been made that an old F-111 style main with 60 jumps would still be considered nearly new, while an F-111 style reserve with 60 pack jobs might be considered very old -- with little data to support just how different those canopies really are from the brand new state. Below is one person's take on permeability changes. I copied it from Dropzone long ago but searches don't seem to find the post anymore at all!?? It gets into some actual permeability data. (I edited out parts not relevant to this discussion)

For the stuff you wrote about, if making a homemade ripcord is wrong, isn't replacing part of a harness the same? There may be no traceability of the thread the rigger uses, or webbing (eg for a leg strap replacement on a rig with hip rings). Or does every Master rigger actually send that kind of work back to the factory? Or ask for a written, approved plan from the manufacturer if they want to shorten the leg straps, put on a longer chest strap, or something like that? So you may be getting into "alteration" territory, but not one that many riggers worry about? Just asking -- although I'm not sure I really want to get into another one of those really detailed discussions about FAA vs Senior rigger vs Master rigger rights.

Perhaps to better understand the degradation of reserve parachutes over time.... To add to that: After collecting permeability stats, one would have to do drop tests or live jump tests to see how much the openings might differ from similar jumps done with new reserves. Work can be done with canopies given a certain number of jumps, vs. canopies given a certain number of pack jobs. If there is some consistent similarity, then information from demo reserves might be a guide to how a reserve might age, in terms of opening characteristics. I would expect PD to have at least some data on that sort of thing, even if they haven't exactly replicated TSO drop tests with aged reserves. (200+ mph drops of 250+ lb dummies don't usually come cheap). I vaguely recall someone claiming older reserves (ie, many pack jobs or demo jumps?) not opening as quickly, but that's anecdotal. Of course at some point increased permeability will affect things, but the question is when. Packing, permeability, and reserve opening characteristics could be a topic for another thread some day, if anyone has some data.

Of course you (and another earlier poster) were thinking about the pilot chute assist style static line setup, while there's also the direct bag style with no pilot chute to worry about. Different styles are better known in different places. A super low airspeed opening with a slider-up canopy isn't something a lot of people have experience with. Although plenty of slider up jumps are done at fairly low speed, with a bit more airflow -- e.g., low speed cutaway from a student canopy in line twists, breaks set, with RSL or even nowadays a MARD for a more static line like experience. I could see that a very low speed opening might be a little messier, without a lot of tension on lines due to low aerodynamic forces, and be more likely to have line twists than at higher speed. (But still probably less than with direct bag static lines out of an aircraft.) If one isn't static lining high performance canopies out of the balloon, not a huge deal. Still that's just guesswork.

Maybe someone only has hundreds of jumps of experience swooping the spectator area, not thousands. ...Wait, I think I'm getting my threads mixed up...

It is difficult to keep opinions out, because of the uncertain knowledge about the nature of nylon and parachute aging. Some riggers don't like to pack old stuff at all, while some will. You can of course have a rigger do PD style 30 lb tensile tests on the reserve, to at least guard against any unusual strength loss for any reason. Nylon does degrade over time but very slowly, although it is worse if it stays hot. Although the data I have is sparse, I did post something in another thread on old gear: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4604089#4604089 That suggests only a couple percent a decade, but other factors might make it more in practice, who knows. As I've said before, one can jump a hard opening, 20 year old Sabre 1 all day, and unless it is really faded and worn, nobody expects to blow up all of a sudden. An older reserve might be considered perfectly acceptable for gear that is occasionally used. The Raven is not outdated in flight or landing characteristics, if wing loading is kept reasonably low. More frequent skydiving or more high speed skydiving might push a jumper towards spending the money for a more modern (spanwise reinforcement) reserve. Even if one thinks the reserve is ok at 25 years, what will be the plan at 30 or 35?

I'm pretty sure there are PISA Hornet line specs at one of the rigging manuals sites (parachutemanuals.com or ukskydiver.co.uk)(but no full manual)... that could also help confirm the size.

I couldn't find the manual at either of those two rigging sites... so I'm emailing the admins at those rigging sites my copy of the Aerosport manual. Not sure where I got it from originally.

Ooh, Strong Aerosport! Rare. Edit: Yes, p/n 420201 is a 24' Aerosport canopy according to my PDF manual. (As opposed to the 28' Aerosport, or 28' Aerosport HD.) Don't see the manual online anywhere at the moment but I could submit it to one of the rigging manual sites.

I know an Icon dealer who gets the ballistic material for his own rigs, and other jumpers who have done the same. I guess they figure it will be tougher and longer lasting, so why not get it, especially when it isn't a $200 added option like a lot of new cool stuff. The material is shinier and smoother. That being said, it is stiffer so I wouldn't try to overstuff the main container. But I don't have a lot of experience with such rigs -- others actually owning one will have more informed opinions.

My $20 used coveralls are the most comfortable jumpsuit I own. Nice loose fit, not constrictive, super easy to get on and off, good ventilation, and I can be comfortable moving about in it because I'm not worried if it gets some wear and tear. My new custom made skin-tight freefly suit made of heavy duty materials is very functional and useful for a particular purpose ... but not as enjoyable to wear, whether normally, in hot weather, or with extra layers stuffed underneath in colder weather.

Interesting poll. I didn't try to look into its methodology or anything though. Relevant to Speakers Corner is this part: It's the old divide and conquer issue like in some elections: Except for the Republican FOX worshippers, news organizations aren't trusted all that much so none gets many votes, with the vote split across many alternatives. That leaves FOX averaging out to be the "most trusted." It shows how many nutters are out there! (I'll note that the poll also gets into the degree of trust for news organizations. Even for Republicans and FOX, only 35% said they trusted FOX "A Great Deal". Numbers for others and other news organizations were always less. People in general don't have high trust in news organizations.)

Hey Councilman, I'll have to stick up for the OP in this case. Even though the issues you brought up are valid, getting a weight belt for a slow faller is a very good thing and not considered a crutch. He could quit the sport for 6 months to do yoga, and not jump until he buys brand new custom fit gear and jumpsuit. But in practical terms having a weight belt stops a novice wasting jump after jump not being able to play properly with most other people, and not being able to learn proper RW technique. Even if down the road he gains experience and might not need the same amount of weight. I'm no RW expert but even with thousands of jumps I need weight. I have a tight suit and I have some freefly and PFF instructor tricks up my sleeve for fast falling ... but it would be stupid to try to plan to do RW with others without weights. As for how much he needs, I can't say. A Small weight belt often only takes about 15 max. So one is really only working with a practical range of 5-15 lbs to experiment with. -- a still pretty tall & skinny guy

It's one of those cases of an airport around which homes were built right up to the edges, and now they want it closed. Although there are a lot of business jet operations there. The Smithsonian Air & Space magazine did an article on it recently (1), which laid out a lot of the issues, but it was seen by the local airport association (2) as being a biased article with some out of data information. (1)http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/can-airport-be-saved-180952758/?all (2) http://www.santamonicaairport.info/in-the-news-the-beacon/

As an aside: Vector II's and old Vector III's had crappy foam that goes 'flat' after a while. One can slip new foam between the leg straps and leg covers. Heavy duty but thin closed-cell camping mat foam. There are tricks to sliding the skinny piece of foam in. A rigger would usually do it as on many rigs one has to remove and resew a nonstructural zigzag stitch to get the foam in. I've done that for a bunch of customers.

Discuss... at existing Gear & Rigging thread http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4678144;

For JAVELINS: So that jpg, presumably current, shows 2 1/8" (53mm) to 2 1/4" (56mm) unstretched. Funny, because the manual current in 2012 ("rev 3") says: "Suggested reserve closing loop after setting and pre stretching to be 54mm to 57mm. (2 1/8 +/- ¼”)" The numbers differ, the measurement techniques differ, and the metric conversions are inconsistent and can't all be correct. But who knows, maybe it was all a deliberate change. (And does everyone really get the loops that short in practice??)

That's a topic on its own that applies to many skills taught! Does one start with a simple method to make it quick to teach and learn, and later transition to a trickier more advanced method? Or use only the more modern advanced method from the beginning? At smaller DZ's it can be tough to get good information to trickle down, even in the era of youtube. So far in this thread I've learned that the 'push to the side' sideslide is both a very handy technique and an antiquated technique (...depending on one's requirements). No simple answers.

Following on to what you have discovered about CSPA Technical Bulletin #110, if the English and French are confusing and don't match each other, then can one trust either version to be the true intent? It would indeed be nice if a bulletin actually referenced the manufacturer's statements/manuals/bulletins to back up its claims. The CSPA bulletin shows how hard it is to write a bulletin truly accurately!

I'll give this a shot too. It might have been serious, it might not have. We just don't know for sure. As for skydivers falling like a rock, unless you are used to seeing jumpers drop at 120 mph you wouldn't know if they are doing 120 or 160. (Without the drogue being fully deployed one would have the weight of two people but the drag of closer to one person since the two people are roughly stacked ontop of each other. Therefore they would accelerate to a faster speed.) The drogue might be collapsed due to a packing problem or some rather unusual equipment failure. The jumpers would fall faster but the main canopy should open normally even if somewhat delayed after pulling the drogue release to open the main canopy. There would only be a small chance of needing to use the reserve parachute. The drogue might even fix itself in the wind blast with no further action needed. It is also possible that the drogue was caught up on something and thus didn't deploy for some time. That's rare but it does happen from some time and is considered more serious. If the instructor doesn't get the drogue toss and timing of it right, while in the right body orientation, it can blow into the dead air ('burble') and then catch on something, or just blow into something. The drogue could catch on the equipment, or wrap around say the instructor or student's leg. An instructor will get a serious critiquing if that sort of thing happens, as one does learn how to deploy it properly while in the proper body orientation. That being said, every instructor has had a poor drogue toss from time to time that had an increased risk if catching on something. Having the drogue catch on something is serious. Typically it can be freed by shaking it off or just having it come off on its own. That would get the instructor's heart rate up but be dealt with within 10 seconds and not last the whole freefall. If the drogue cannot soon be freed, the reserve parachute can be activated, and indeed that's the standard procedure. One prefers not to do that while other stuff is flapping about behind oneself - there is a small risk of an entanglement (which is BAD since you're out of parachutes) - but usually it should work out fine, although possibly with a hard opening if there's extra speed built up. [Note to skydivers: I'm not getting into the finer details of a drogue in tow that's uninflated vs. inflated, as it wasn't clear anyway what the speed was.) I'm guessing the incident was probably not so serious unless your wife for example noticed herself hanging steeply head down the whole freefall or was spinning uncontrollably or something, that would indicate that the instructor didn't have things under reasonable control. Also, if the instructor deployed the main parachute at about the normal altitude, that also suggests things might well have gotten fixed up and were back to normal. If you have a really serious problem and can't fix it, roughly speaking you deal with it and get one parachute deployed and don't wait for extra speed to build up even more or wait for normal deployment altitude. So for things getting fixed and the dive going back to normal, that might be from a collapsed drogue uncollapsing itself, or the drogue caught in the burble for a bit but then deploying normally. Things like that aren't that serious but still a jump that had a problem, from the instructor's viewpoint. So again, probably it wasn't a serious problem, but a skydiver can always think through all sorts of possibilities that they have to consider, from dire to minor.

Never heard of an Aerodyne life. Basically I'm used to North American gear where nothing has a life listed and national organizations don't have any arbitrary life limits... ... except some pilot rig manufacturers (where one can debate whether the restriction is FAA legal or not based on original certification data etc) ... except Strong tandems ... except usage and pack limits for some reserves (before inspection, not grounding) Personally I've landed a 55 year old main, landed a 34 year old reserve used after a malfunction, and used a 37 year old harness. So you see I might have a certain bias about gear ages.

@brian Well it is a bit of a head scratcher. All the requirements are posted on the wall on carefully designed progression posters and that's the way it is. The A CoP application just has a signoff for the 5 (passed) RW jumps so nobody is any wiser. Only the instructors from time to time remember that it isn't quite like the CSPA system. I haven't polled other instructors lately but it can take a few repeats to pass the tougher RW levels. Still, instructors try to look for a very basic capability and not insist on perfection. For the B, instructors get a little tougher on seeing the same skills demonstrated to a higher standard.