pchapman

But be careful: In contrast to those good neighbours, one can also get the not-so-friendly neighbours grabbing and hiding stuff because now they've heard how expensive canopies are and that skydivers are willing to pay good dollars to get things back. One still wants to be friendly and maybe tip someone who goes out of their way to help you find something in the back 40. (And I've bought beer & food for skydivers with climbing spikes or who otherwise went out of their way to retrieve stuff.)

There are some threads on various tracking solutions, mainly ones that could theoretically be built, or adapted to skydiving, with few that have been built. There just aren't turnkey solutions being regularly marketed to skydivers. There are various challenges for price or range depending on the design, whether using radio location or GPS & cell service based. The traditional solution is just to follow your canopy as much as safely possible, and have others on your jump do the same. So you can do the same for others if they have a cutaway. The caveat is "safely". For some that may mean just heading home to the DZ, for others it might mean floating in brakes overhead until the canopy touches down and then landing in rougher terrain nearby. Depends on your skill, state of mind (maybe after some nasty mal or hard opening), and the terrain. Easy to get yourself in trouble while fixating on something and spiralling around over bad terrain. Take mental note of notable landmarks (eg, where at the edge of the forest or field one would start walking to reach the canopy). People back at the DZ may have watched too, to get a bearing. That's where a good map of the DZ area helps. A friend did lose a new canopy on his first jump on it. High hop and pop to test it out. It drifted off into a big swamp. Or someone lost a canopy because it bag locked on a high CRW jump. Stuff happens...

Now you've just advertised that you have RW-6's. If you lose any more, it's probably a rigger with interesting projects who will have stolen it. (I've got four and I'm keeping 'em!)

That's fair enough too, even if I personally disagree. One would have to have skydiving organizations like USPA decree that "hard deck" means one specific thing when used in skydiving. ... So that it doesn't mean the hard deck for breaking off RW, or the hard deck for pulling one's main, or your hard deck for an intentional low jump, or the hard deck for minimum bailout altitude to main, or hard deck for minimum bailout to reserve (other than for non-landable aircraft situations), or the hard deck for normal malfunction procedures, ........ etc.

I still figure that too many different things can be called the hard deck. Hard deck for this, hard deck for that. It's like saying, "what's your (altitude) limit?". You can have all sorts of limits for different things. So I'd prefer to use "hard deck" only within the context of a conversation where everyone knows which limit is being discussed. If someone can come up with better terms than things like the "no-cutaway altitude", great, but until then I'd prefer a longer awkward phrase over a short one that can be misunderstood too easily.

That's why I use Tube Stoes that last for hundreds of jumps, as the locking stows on my semi-stowless bag. Anyway, anyone still have comments on the original topic of line wear with semi-stowless bags, rather then a discussion of choice of bag type? It's like a bag measuring contest in here...

I can't rule out that line wear might be a little higher with a semi-stowless bag, even if generally I haven't heard of major problems. But I also need to see more evidence. In a semi stowless bag there's little line contact against itself, except the major case of the lines all going to the far end of the pocket when one starts, so each bight slides past those upper lines. Maybe at least as significant is that the lines are being compressed between nylon layers and rub against them as they are pulled rapidly out. I think UPT still uses a cotton buffer right at the center mouth of the pouch but most other companies don't bother. With rubber bands, as RichM pointed out, lines rub on themselves at the bights. (And rubber itself being so grippy might cause wear -- remember how elastic bands that people put on harness rings caused UPT to issue a bulletin because it was wearing the harness. Still, because elastic bands used as stows are able to twist and flip, maybe the wear of the line against elastic is actually negligible.) Just anecdotally I used a home-made semi stowless bag along with vectran lines and went really long on a couple line sets without an perceivable issue.

If we're doing xkcd then I have to counter with http://xkcd.com/984/ (And I guess that qualifies for Godwin's law...)

Back in '02 they did get all security conscious and did have extra security applied against the jumpers (while others couldn't take backpacks or similar large, closed containers onto the bridge). They had us lay the rigs down and let bomb sniffing dogs go over them. Can't recall offhand how many Bridge Days they did that; maybe only a year or two. Sounds like the current situation isn't really about bridge security anyway.

Yay, American space stuff not blowing up! Although I realize the lay person doesn't hear about the successes, only the failures. From looking at a few news reports, most don't follow through on the meaning of the height flown to, or the peak velocity, and so miss the important point that it partially simulates a return from far away and not just a low orbit re-entry.

Some old timer will know. This is what I've figured out as someone not all that familiar with that time: Safety Flyer was the first square reserve, c. 1978. 160 ft sq someone said, but also seen 152 listed in Paragear as the PIA number which could differ from the manufacturer's. Doesn't have a standard brake system. Safety Star came next. Paragear said 180 ft sq. as the manufacturer's number. Swift was the next one from Para Gear, at least for the similar size range. 177 ft sq and a new airfoil. Weird brake system on it. Fine to use but pay attention to manual to pack. So what was the brake system on the Safety Star?? I think the 'Star didn't had actual F-111 yet. Riggerrob once wrote of tearing one on a pull test at a low value. Make sure the canopy is well pull tested. And if you have to land it, the water might be nice. Safety Flyer landings sucked, everyone said. The 'Star should be a bit better, but still it is a small, squarish 5 cell from the early days of skydiving.... Again, I don't have personal experience with anything before Swifts. Hey, I found Andrew Hilton posted Safety Star specs on flickr, since he does a lot of vintage gear stuff: http://www.flickr.com/photos/43867826@N07/4096369568

I'll do a partial (only partial) defense of paraglider pilots: Yes it can be more of intellectual challenge, chasing invisible currents of air and trying to stay aloft or travel some distance. Not as adrenalin fueled as skydivers typically are. As for doing SAT's and helicopters, those are very advanced maneuvers. I don't see many skydivers stalling their smaller canopies or helicoptering them. You might as well say skydiving is a pretty wimpy activity if all they do under canopy is to gather in a herd, minimize turns after opening, following a strict pattern, and not be allowed to swoop. Now if you paraglide somewhere without big mountains (as I have), and are slope soaring down low over trees on a small ridge, now that can be like a 5 minute or hour long swoop. Well, less intense since one might be 30 to 200 ft over the terrain. But you're constantly working on gaining or maintaining altitude, trying to make it an hour plus flight instead of a 5 minute 'sled ride' to the bottom. One bad judgement about where to turn or whether you have to bail out to the landing area can put you into the trees or rocks. So at least the risk comes with some excitement! Certainly it is easy to get into a lot of risk in paragliding because the stronger winds or thermals, depending on the location, are what will keep you aloft longer, so it is easy to keep pushing to see what the limits are instead of sitting around waiting for a calm, shorter, more boring flight.

I believe it's an old concept have a joke card like that. I vaguely heard of fighter pilots in the 60s having similar cards. Pilot extraordinaire, virgins cured, lesbians converted, all that sort of stuff.

Just tell them it that in the old days it was your beer bottle holder for cross country jumps. Then walk away.

I don't know what's best, but I've liked steps that have one of those black, gritty anti-slip layers put on top. (Aircraft Spruce or a similar supplier may have fancy solutions, but a skateboard shop would probably having something cheaper.)

Leaving the tree in water or ice before it moves indoors is pretty much the way I learned thru family tradition, if the tree is acquired early. However, that's removed when the tree goes indoors and so when the tree is set up it sits in a small plastic container like a margarine tub and is watered daily. The tree can really suck up the water at times. My mom's German so there's a specific time to put up the tree, just a day or two before Christmas Eve, not weeks ahead. (At her place we always use real candles too, 12 if possible, because again that's tradition. They're lit only when supervised and nobody is running about. As a kid I always liked the German traditions, because presents are given in the evening of Christmas Eve. Didn't have to wait until the next morning like the other kids!)

Hey Lee, I think it might have been a British rig because a British jumper showed it to me but I didn't record the details of the one I saw or even take a shot of the whole rig - see photo. Not a Racer but possibly a Racer-like design. (Looks like the one in the photo was later converted to a 1980's style Racer pullout.) Other pilot chute locations? The short lived Para Flite Eos had some pouch in the backpad, in the small of one's back? Not that this helps Yvonne much!

I stand corrected... Hang on -- he said his patent covers it. But did he invent it? A patent can cover a whole range of possibilities without every possibility being worked out. Such as a pilot chute that is not spring loaded and is deployed by a direct connection from hand to pilot chute. Parachutist mag said: and Ref: parachutistonline.com/safety_training/ask_a_rigger/pull-out-pilot-chutes As you'll see below, I don't fully believe Parachutist is this case. Other sources also say "early 1970's" for the patent. What patent is it? It must be US patent # 4,039,164 by William Ross Booth, patented 1977, filed 1976. I don't see anything earlier by him, nor does he cite any earlier work related to himself or his company. It is also the patent shown in Poynters vol 1 about non spring loaded pilot chutes. Ponyters notes that The wording isn't quite clear whether the Wonderhog actually had both at that time, or just started the trend which gave us both designs in the end. The patent says stuff like: So it is saying there is a small pilot chute (which can't have a spring) in a pouch on the front of the jumper (eg belly band), and the bridle is inserted into the closing loop. That's it. Nothing about closing pin designs, spandex pouches, leg throw outs, BOC's, or pull-outs. Indeed other language in the patent repeatedly states how it has the safety measure of the properly deployed pilot chute being what determines whether the pack is opened. The main chute can't fall out of the pack until tugged by a properly deployed pilot chute So this effectively denies being related to the pull-out concept. Near the end the patent there is a sort of conclusion where the patent attempts to be as all-encompassing as it can, something which patents try to do: Again, this is counter to the operation of the pull-out. Therefore I will now say that Bill's patent does not in any way invent the pull-out, try to claim the pull-out, or even cover the pull out in any way. Did Bill's invention pave the way for pull-outs and other changes to rigs? Absolutely! It was a brilliant invention (not so much for technology but for a change in the way of thinking) but that doesn't mean he invented the pull out. If Bill actually played with pull out designs and has other claims, I'm all ears. So now I'd like to hear his neighbor John Sherman give his side of the story too. John's pull-out timeline is unclear to me too. The Parachutist quote suggests 1974 for devising the system. Poynters says that the SST/Racer that could come with a pull-out didn't hit the market until 1977, while the earlier Super Swooper Tandem was ripcord operated. So I'd like to know more about the development process and experimentation before the pull-out actually hit the market. (I haven't searched dz.com for old threads - I'll leave that for someone else.) I don't know all the answers here but I do like to try to have a better, more accurate understanding of parachuting history.

Hmm, Orion container, not Para-Flite Orion reserve!

Pilot chute cocked ok? Did you feel a delay after tossing, as if the pilot chute got in the burble and nothing was lifting off your back? (So the liftoff could have been slow when it did happen) Stows are another possible issue. Hard to tell from just a few words about what you only felt or maybe saw out of the corner of your eye if twisting to look over your shoulder during the deployment. Does sound like the bag may have come off your back slowly and/or lines releasing slowly, which gives the bag a chance to rock and spin up before the canopy is out of the bag.

"Hard deck" does seem to be a term without a clear definition. Neither it nor "decision altitude" or "decision height" are in the USPA SIM. (I don't know what terms the book does use.) I've seen other hard deck threads where people have different personal uses of the term. One person might use decision altitude for where to cutaway at, while hard deck is reserved for a lower level, reserve pull but no cutaway. One should at least have those two different concepts in mind, whatever names one uses (For Canucks, CSPA PIM 1 doesn't define hard deck, and PIM 2A uses it in the simplistic way to define both the decision about whether one's main is good, and whether one should pull the reserve without a cutaway.) As evan85 points out, there's a difference between one's preferred altitude and where one is actually at. It's kind of like "don't pull low, unless you are". It becomes "don't cutaway low, unless you are ...except if really low, then reserve pull without a cutaway". One might like to make a cutaway decision by 2000' and stick to that as a minimum if one is fighting a mal and getting down towards that level. On the other hand, if you pull and snivel to 1800' before discovering a problem, then decision height is going to be right there in the next few seconds! It is good to set up a mental image of general safety boundaries, but then if one has already broken one of one's preferred boundaries, one needs to know the absolute minimum boundaries one is willing to try to use. So the terminology is confusing, especially to a newbie, and the actual boundaries to use can be confusing too. Newbies tend to be given simplified information because one doesn't have a good feel for all the nuances yet. Even as an experienced jumper it is hard to tell what one's reaction will be or should be in a really unusual situation at some really low altitude. Better try to avoid those situations in the first place!

To the OP, I'lll try to summarize a complex situation without going all RiggerLee on you: Basically if you're not having a problem, you don't have a problem. If you're worried about them breaking, don't. They're good for thousands of pounds. If you are having a slippage problem, get it looked at. Usually any slippage is just when the harness is looser, eg, sitting on the plane. Not fun to open up with a leg strap a few inches loose. But you do check your straps before exit, right? Slippage has happened occasionally. Tends to involve certain adapters and certain leg strap types. So most rigs don't have a problem at all, but a few do, and that can be taken care of. (Occasionally dirty leg straps can get a bit slick and contribute.) It isn't a random out of the blue problem. Make sure you know how to tuck the leg strap ends away in keepers and/or under the leg strap covers to keep them in place when not loaded. It is very rare for any slippage to happen under load. Usually only a few inches at most. Not good for reaching toggles etc or loading the canopy evenly, but usually not a cause of any real accident. (And one can usually tighten up under canopy if needed.) People have fixed such problems with an extra layer of webbing on the leg straps. Or I fixed the problem for one guy with gaffers tape on the hardware to make it less slick. Remember that the leg straps have fold backs at the loose end, which are designed so that the leg strap can never slide out (but can only be removed if carefully unthreaded). Other than that, conquering fears is part of skydiving.

Topics: a) sewing along the loop necessary? b) not just an overhand knot if using Spectra main loops? If we're talking about closing loop design then I can ask whether many bother with sewing along the closing loop. In the old days it was more common to see a loop with some sewing, maybe just a straight stitch along it. (Like on some traditional 2 pin reserve loop of type IIa sheathing) Most modern IIa main loops I see don't have the stitching and I personally don't bother with it -- as long as one makes sure the finger trap goes down to the free end so someone doesn't tie the knot over a non-fingertrapped section. Years ago if making Spectra main closing loops for people I might sew along it just to be sure. They were slipperier and I'd put in a double overhand knot into it too, instead of a single overhand. It might have been overkill. But when putting a ton of weight on a slippery Spectra loop to test it, the regular overhand knot did sometimes seem to slip. But all that was just small DZ rigging so I'm curious what others consider acceptable or good practice.

When one has a Wings?? That's my honest first answer, but I'm guessing that's not what you were getting at!

Here's one little thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet: If you have done 6 AFF jumps, depending on re-do's, you may be getting up close to what was Level 6, the unstable exit. No need to worry about that big transition from in the airplane to normal freefall. Forget the perfect exit, perfect presentation to the wind, leg kicks, and so on. Just tumble on out and sort it out afterwards. It is a bit of shock therapy and doesn't exercise one's actual stable exit technique, but can lead to it being less stressful because you're proving to your mind that falling out of an airplane isn't as big a deal as it was screaming at you! (DZ's will vary of course in exactly how they brief the unstable exit.)