pchapman

Fair enough. But at least there has been a fair bit of background interest in this year as the 100 year anniversary of WWI. I think a relatively high number of new books have been published on the conflict. The BBC has done some TV specials, but in the UK they were more involved in the war than this side of the pond. Even at least one of my local Canadian newspapers has done a couple articles. I can't even recall, without looking it up, which particular day the 28th is. I think Austria-Hungary declaring war on Servia (Serbia). The whole approach to war was such an escalating mess that I think few over here remember a particular date, as various countries mobilized or declared war. The dates are poorly remembered over here unlike say Dec 7 for Americans or June 22 for Russians. WWI does still have a large and direct influence on the world as it is today. Sort of a European civil war with a 2nd part 20+ years later, setting in motion the rise of some extreme governments, removal of monarchies, pulling apart of empires, and eventually after part 2, the discrediting of colonialism worldwide.

One issue is the people watching. Where does one find info suggesting that if anyone is watching, it is an open air assembly of persons? (DiverMike suggested some NTSB judgement -- but they have no bearing on FAA's rules? Or did the FAA make some ruling?) Does it matter that it it a closed and not public event? I know some countries distinguish between an open public even like an air display, versus a more private event, but I'm not sure what the limits are. Even if the crowd is an open-air assembly, isn't authorization only required if one flies OVER or INTO the open-air assembly (or congested area), like it says in part 105.21? Following the logic of the text, you can have a giant crowd but if you don't fly over them and swoop into a field right next to them, you aren't landing "into" the crowd. I know that's a trick in my country's rules. Or does any source list horizontal separation from the assembly of persons or congested area? Demo jump rules can be tough to understand.

Occasionally I find a main pilot chute where the hackey handle is half an inch or more away from the pilot chute material, instead of being tight up against the PC. The attachment tape hasn't actually stretched, but the knots inside the top of the PC have shifted, allowing more tape to pull out from inside the PC. Jumpers don't always recognize the problem or notice it slowly worsening. Any comments on this issue, and how others fix it? I'm not familiar with all pilot chute design variations, but one common style uses a complex knotting system for the center line support tapes that also hold the hackey on, that can slip. It's a very traditional method but does sometimes cause problems over time. Sometimes I've supertacked the tapes together just inside the pilot chute so they don't pull out of the two slots often found at the top of the PC. That seems a simple fix at least for the medium term, until the supertack knots loosen! One can just redo the centerline tape knots. I've even put the center line tapes under the sewing machine to sew them together just short of the adjusted knot, to keep the knot from slipping down too much in the future. But since one can't easily to sew right next to a knot, I still do the tacking just inside the pilot chute. I'm not trying to re-hash the issue of hackeys vs. freefly handles vs. plastic tube handles. But I don't like handles that are dangling away from the pilot chute. More snag hazard, more opportunity for the handle to be flapping around in the wind, dislodging the pilot chute or being harder to find. (There's even one brand's freefly handle that is basically on the end of an inch long tape, rather than being attached at both ends of the handle right to the pilot chute. Don't like that one.) I don't have any great photos, but this shows the issue -- big separation between PC and handle: [inline hackey_handle_stretched_tape.jpg] An example where the knot seemed tight but still left a lot of slack for the hackey, so I tacked the tapes: [inline hackey_handle_stretched_tape--knot_inside_and_tacking.jpg]

Oh crap. Yet another knee jerk reaction from the DZO who is trying to eliminate all sources of liability, real or imagined, at the DZ. He has already made AAD's mandatory (except for solo exits with short delays), floated the idea of mandatory 3000' minimum pull altitude, and banned anything but 3-ring releases. His goal (in my mind) is basically to have a tandem factory with no other sources of risk to his DZ that he has built up over 40+ years. Edit: The jumper who died had 2000+ jumps, been flying high performance canopies for years, e.g., a JVX by 2007, and recently a Comp Velo. He died doing just a 180 while not particularly current. (The Toronto area fatality early in July) He was known to push pretty hard in BASE and to some degree in skydiving. So the DZO could argue that anyone is liable to screw up sometime, which is true. The DZ has never had a fatality, which probably doesn't help matters for calming the DZO's nerves.

One local DZ rigger requires a newbie with new gear to get a D-ring reserve handle. If the rig already has a pillow, that handle can be saved for later, after a couple hundred jumps minimum. I certainly wouldn't go as far as having a mandatory D-ring... but I have a grudging respect for his choice of a strong stand on the matter. (What does the BPA in the UK say? They love to ban things for newbies.)

A crude drawing. Have to get the back part of the leg strap forward, easier when the main lift web is further forward, and when the legs are raised. Nicer to 'sit on your butt/thighs' than to 'hang from your groin'. [inline straps.jpg]

More guesswork: If it weren't a custom rig, I'd ask whether the laterals are too short for your body, pulling the leg strap junction back, leaving you more 'hanging forward' than 'sitting back'. Early 1980s rigs were often more like that. But as you said, it is a custom rig. A newer jumper is more likely to over-tighten the leg straps. Are you comfortable walking to the plane and sitting in the plane?

A valuable post. The Green Star gets mentioned from time to time over the years, but I don't recall anyone ever actually explaining WHY people started mucking around with the stitching.

I now see you and hackish are right: The manual's picture sure looks like a 'down from the top' pack job, but a careful reading of the text shows that it is unclear exactly how it is supposed to work, top down or bottom up. Given that there are two velcro pieces on the bridle that squeeze together to provide slack, the drawing could be representing either method, because as it says, "the bridle folds above the pin". That does suggest bottom up is actually the correct way. (But I haven't had regular experience with Sidewinders.)

I thought the manual was pretty clear that it uses the traditional Vector method, "from the top down, above the right flap"? The manual that's on Flying High's site is still the traditional 2001 one. (Are we looking at the same document??) One could guess that one could just as well come up from under the flap, to the pin, and back down, as is now allowed by UPT. Whether or not it is in the manual for Flying High. I'd think Al would be happy to sort it out in any case.

Clearly nobody likes what happened but one can understand how it happens. "Sigh... our load is in 20 minutes, the guy paid for one jump and will hopefully never return, we've wrestled and dumped students before, and we don't even need to let go on this level. I'm paid per-jump so I'm not taking the time to keep on working with this goof who should take up bowling. Yeah, one shouldn't give up on someone that fast, and if instructors were patient and worked with him some more, maybe some day he'll be a good jumper, but I'm busy today. We're expected be able to handle stupid rigid dearched students anyway and I don't feel like arguing with him. Let's just get this show on the road and get it over with..."

Is that also an official mod or what? I already bought a regular line set for my old FX however...

I dunno. Could take some more investigating. Something for another thread some day!

Although they are of course still certified to 254lbs I think, as was normal in those days. They were just designed in an era where one didn't load F-111 canopies highly, and manufacturers were very conservative with their numbers. So for years Raven manuals (for main and reserve) had a wing loading diagram that basically showed .70 to .85 as the recommended wing loading, with above 1.02 "not approved". Even a PD126 was listed as 151 lbs max back in the '90s, which is only a 1.2 loading, and plenty soon started breaking that limit. It just so happened that as jumpers grew more skilled on landing small canopies, the PD design was still up to the job. Any rigger packing a PD vs a Raven will remark at how "short" a Raven is, how close together the A,B,C, and D line groups are. Without doing any calculations, it seems they were trimmed a lot flatter. Nice for floating along but too close to a stall when heavily loaded. Hell, even Sabre main canopies listed a maximum weight equivalent to 1.1 loading. Like nobody has ever broken that!

Yeah ripstop tape may stick OK on well worn older ZP, but isn't any good on newer ZP. Some people stick a patch on, then sew it down so it actually holds. That's both quick and secure, good for minor holes. Others prefer that if there's a patch, it'll be done "the right way", and spend the time to do the formal rigger style patch with cut out fabric, folded edges, etc. Which looks better if the canopy is sold but on the other hand makes it look more damaged in the first place.

Nice. First you listed just the rules alone... then added the reasons for the rules, and now added a great example to demonstrate!

I don't know of any precise definition, but I don't see why crabbing can't apply to flights both upwind and downwind. So if the wind is from directly behind, and you turn say 45 degrees, you are both running (heading a significant amount downwind) and crabbing (heading partially crosswind).

I should note that in this particular incident the DZO did not mention any name in the next-morning interviews, even when family had been notified. With the speed of the news cycle and social media, there's no way to stop really uncomfortable situations. Such as a relative noticing something is up, phoning the DZ before official notification, and asking "Where's xxxxxx? Why aren't you answering the phones? Did something happen?" In an age where people post photos of the meals they are eating, it's hard to stop them from posting about a lost friend, especially if all they do is say BSBD or change their facebook photo to all black. I see the frustration people have, and the need to try to keep educating each other, but with the easy access to social media one just isn't going to be able to keep things a total secret these days while waiting hours (?) for official notification. Edit: Yes this would be a good topic to spin off separately from the accident thread.

That's actually an awkward phrasing, as it could be taken both ways -- "flaps are IN not OUT" vs "put in some flaps".

I have also seen some Sigma risers with the single snap missing, presumably because the narrow flanges on the snap didn't grip well enough and pulled through the material. Tandem risers of course get some sustained rough handling. While I like the snap concept, there would be a bit of a technique to it, to make sure the snap goes into a hole that is just right for the two parts to clamp onto well.

Yes sliders are always (as far as I have seen) assembled so that the reinforcement tape is on top, so that the air load on the fabric pushes it up against the tape. That being said, what about the slider grommet orientation? That sometimes varied for brass grommets, although my impression is that variation was more common in the early days, while now it has pretty much standardized on having the seam upwards. (Seam between the grommet and washer parts, that is). The question is still valid, why the difference for brass vs. stainless steel grommets?

Yeah Andy that's more like the traditional tersh in the sense used by CRW guys in the early 80s, although it was still rare then. It wasn't just snapping on an old belly mount with throw out canopy. Back then it would have been a hang gliding reserve (since paragliding didn't exist as a sport), or something custom built based on the same concept. I don't know the exact details as I wasn't jumping then. While unsteerable rounds like in hang gliding do have a single bridle, for paragliding the single bridle does split into 2 risers at the shoulders. So opening shock and landing isn't taken half on one's side. For those not familiar with the systems, the system is "hand deployed" but not like an old military belly mount. For a paragliding reserve, the handle on the container is connected to the bag. So you don't need to grab a bundle of canopy and toss it out, you just pop the pins and toss the whole bag in the desired direction. There's no pilot chute and bridle on it, so nothing to wrap around itself or to pull itself straight up into the malfunctioning main. The bag opens from inertia - when it comes to the end of the lines the momentum from the mass of the canopy will pop the last line stow. (There have been a couple with drag pockets on the bag, to give it a little extra drag.) Some things are different with paragliding reserves but I won't get into the details. As is, they aren't suitable as a skydiving tersh as they are designed to open fast, which is good at very low speeds, and only designed for say 80 mph maximum test speed in certification. With the new low bulk fabrics the recent designs have become more compact. Bridle lengths have to be chosen for the right application -- so a HG reserve might have a long bridle to clear the glider, while a PG reserve might be shorter to stay short of the paraglider on its long lines. Paragliding reserves have tended to stay as rounds due reasons including to the low altitude two-out issues and not normally having a cutaway system. But Rogallo wings also exist (and one cuts away one side of the main after deployment to streamer the main behind you), or for pilots doing aerobatics, a square with a full cutaway has been used too. Most people don't need a 3rd canopy, but if one were building something nowadays, some combining of both skydiving and paragliding knowledge would help in building something appropriate for hand deployment past a malfunctioning regular reserve with no cutaway.

Which it may be, in very rough terms, ....for a main parachute, including typical operational factors that don't involve the design itself. Reserve parachutes are probably an order of magnitude more reliable. At least that, I hope. Reserves don't get packed in 5 minutes before the next load, with lines with 800 jumps on them, so there are operational reasons for improved reliability. That's in addition to the much more conservative design than used for the faster main parachutes. That still doesn't get to the one in a billion you were talking about, but whatever the stats are, it is regarded as safe enough. Especially when there are so many more ways to die, so many more things to watch out for, that failed reserves are a tiny, tiny fraction of all skydiving fatalities.

Just curious, is there a reason, other than "nyah, nyah, nyah, because we say so?" From prior discussions on dz, we know the burning issue with Dacron lined mains and thus reserves. Plus the reserves have more lines than usual, creating bulk which would require custom slinks. What about the main, if Vectran lined? In the thread Skydiverek linked to, Mike Gruewell suggested the way the slider sat on Sigma mains tended to cause more wear at the slink area than with other mains. Or is UPT just being conservative to ensure there aren't problems with slinks not being replaced?

This is an interesting case. The rigger might even have thought he was doing a really good job to get the pilot chute well seated. (I'm not sure of loop length but the rig looked quite reasonable on the video before the pin was pulled.) We know that Mirages, after the cutter relocation ontop of the PC, and especially if also having the older non-dished PC cap, tend to be a bit bulgy with the top flap not as flush and flat as many would like. For many rigs, there are tricks riggers use to try to improve the pack job distribution, which don't always exactly match what the manual says. I've even seen rigs come factory packed in ways different from the manual. So there he goes and tries a different form of bulk distribution to make the rig close better, with a shorter loop, and finds out an unintended consequence -- The pilot chute base seating down too low, with the edges of flap 1 curling over it. So while he may have lost his license for other things, and clearly packed the bridle unlike any other Mirage, I think the pilot chute error can't just be dismissed as "He didn't follow the manual". It is as something a little more complex than that. Some rigging experience was lacking, to see the potential for a problem, when adjustments were made to the bulk distribution described in the manual. The edges of those Mirage flaps #1 that cover the freebag, do tend to fold and get in the way. Simply sweeping the edges of flap 1 outward while bringing the side flaps inward might well have avoided the problem, despite the deep well in the center. Or perhaps in this case, the well was too deep (because he went apparently quite extreme on adjusting bulk distribution) and the flap had to bend excessively. It isn't uncommon for a rigger to need to keep something like a bridle in place while the next flap is pulled across and closed, so good rigging observation would have caught that the edges of the flap were not lying flat but were folding into the PC. (Although it wouldn't fix any long term cracking that might happen.) (Hell, if we all followed manuals exactly, there might be trapped Mirage G3 reserve pilot chutes everywhere. For years and years, and even now, the manual skips the stop on what to do with the pilot chute fabric after a 'tube' is created! One can kind of guess from the photos, follow typical rigging practices, or copy from the later G4, but there are zero instructions. See Figure 30+ in the G3 manual.)