pchapman

I think your post is terrible advice. It may technically be correct, or be correct in some rare situations, but does the original poster a big disservice. Huh? You still have to get rid of rate of descent, and that requires taking the time to pitch the canopy up. Sure, I have done a no flare landing under a slow descending accuracy canopy in 25mph winds, so you are technically correct, but in general that advice is useless and wrong. Jeez, the guy only has a few jumps and is trying to master the very basics of a flare. And now he should be worrying about the temperature before he lands??? Again, what you are talking about is not maybe technically wrong, but is packaged in a way that isn't great advice. The start of the flare can be pretty much identical in all conditions, as one has to pitch the canopy and plane out. The end part will change depending on how much slowing down one needs to do -- occasionally with high wind, one doesn't have to finish the flare as much as one doesn't want to get to the point of going backwards. But even this is getting beyond what is needed for someone just trying to get the starting altitude of the flare right.

Wasn't the slack brake line ALWAYS kept above the brake ring on Sigma canopies? That is, on the traditional Dacron lined ones that were the only ones you could get for years? Now with Vectran lined ones, things are different. There is no setting loop on the secondary brake line. The Dacron lined ones had brake setting eyes both on the main brake line and the secondary flare line. As I recall, the secondary lines had their own guide ring even then, so when setting that brake line, which was done with the setting loop in the main guide ring, it had to go both in and out of the top of the main guide ring anyway. So it made some sense to leave the slack "above" the main guide ring. Then the slack for the main brake line was also left out above, perhaps just for symmetry or because the velcro covers were up high anyway, around the tip of the toggle. Another reason for leaving the excess brake line above is that by the standard 'below' method, then one would have two separate big thick brake lines trying to rush up through the brake guide ring, as soon as you popped the toggle. Which, who knows, might be more likely to tangle or jam. So I'm wondering if it is a historical thing, someone thinking, "Bill Booth always wanted it this way on Tandems, slack goes above the guide ring!!" This was absolutely true for some years but no longer applies once other types of equipment are available, in particular Sigmas without Dacron. After people get something drilled into their head for years, it can be tough to forget, even when the original reasons have changed.

Which is fine, and represents low winds.... but I'll add that when it's windy, instead jump driving 10+ mph off the side of a pickup. Not quite as much fun. When I've done vintage round jumps, I've always been able to pick nice days with not much wind, which makes things a lot easier than for the old timers who were jumping day after day and had to deal with winds unless they stayed on the ground half the time. My first rig was one with a square main but round reserve, so one jumped in any conditions and hoped not to use the reserve. Finally I did in 2000 after a CRW wrap, and landed the Phantom 24 going backwards in 18 mph wind on the DZ anemometer. The backwards roll was a bit rough but no injuries. According to the specs, even when I weighted 140 lbs, I would have been coming down about 16 fps and maybe -- with a canopy forward speed through the air of say 5 mph-- 19 fps backwards, for a total velocity of about 25 fps. That's an example of how substantial wind makes rounds less fun!

Another trick is the two stage flare. That won't help you with the flare altitude itself, but gives you a bit of extra time to evaluate the effect of the flare whether the flare is early (and you can hold off on the 2nd half for a couple seconds) or late (and you have to haul down faster, all the way). The two stage flare is thus less sensitive to altitude than the one stage -- waiting for hopefully the perfect altitude and then just slamming both toggles all the way down. Practice flares up high should help too. Not with the altitude, but with the feel. You have to feel that swing forward, and you may be able to feel where in the arm motion you're getting the most effect of the flare. As usual, talk to the instructors about these options.

He's mathematically wrong on the stuff in the examples in exercise 3 and 4. When one isn't on a heading that gives a ground path directly at the target, the moving up or down of the target is not directly related to whether one is too far or not. It takes some fiddling with simplified 3-D flight calculations to prove this to oneself. You can be higher and closer on base leg than needed, and as one flies in towards the wind line, and you sink over time, the target may be moving up in your field of vision. His method suggests that you should turn in towards the target to avoid undershooting. But really you are just burning off excess altitude and may end up at the right spot once you hit the wind line. But, despite his oversimplification, a lot about his document (quite a few years old now) is decent. Where to turn base leg is a big determinant of where you will land. If you don't have to follow some other traffic exactly, then the other area where you get to adjust your landing point is through adjusting the way you turn base and final -- As TK shows, you can 'cut the corners' entering and exiting the base leg, or perhaps you can even swing a little wide. Being able to judge the up and down movement of the target instinctively is still very useful. (...even if its motions during downwind and base are not a mathematically correct guide as to whether you are too high or low or need to turn more towards the target). Before doing your downwind and base you should have already determined an approximate angle that your canopy will fly on final. That could be from a guess before the jump -- "Based on what I see other canopies doing, I'll probably be coming down at about a 60 degree angle in that wind!" Or you'll have an estimate from a wind check before entering the circuit -- "My descent angle is about 60 degrees here at 1200', and although winds tend to drop with altitude, the wind socks show it is still blowing strong down there, so I'll aim to hit the wind line for final no shallower than about 60 degrees elevation from the target"

That's in another new thread already. See "AFF Level 2 helps instructor out" in General. Although maybe you want to discuss the implications for camera helmets...

But do you think a plastic reinforced pin cover flap has less chance of transmitting outside forces to the pin? (Still, on the Wings, having the fairly solid bottom flap close last does give some extra protection to the pin, with its tip extending down into the slot in the bottom flap.) As for Wings in general, they seem to be the rig where the freebag fits the most poorly into the reserve tray... Needing more massaging than any other rig to get the freebag into place and the side flaps closed sufficiently over the freebag to allow space for the pilot chute. In other words, Wings are a pain in the ass for riggers. Oh, I'm sure some don't mind them, but I bet a bunch will agree with me.

Could be a regional variation. The way I learned to do PFF in Canada, for example, both instructors maintain contact and keep the student stable until the student is pulled from their grip. If the student had a deployment problem, main side could assist while reserve side maintains stability and is backup in the rare case a reserve pull is needed. (eg, for deployment issues, I've seen the bag not clearing the burble, or the student holding on to pilot chute) Although clearly in this case the instructor became a hazard ... Now someone has to take a screenshot so there's a picture of a pilot chute on an AFFI's 'regular' video camera, not just the photo that's out there of a pilot chute on a GoPro. Whatever method may be better, there are accepted variations out there.

Yup, that was in the thread I started. (But you conveniently linked directly to Bill's reply rather than to the whole thread as I did.)

I once found 4 turns of thread, taking something like 45 lbs to break, and started a thread. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3744788; The great bearded one did reply further down the thread, and basically said that in a normal skydive it's gonna pop fairly soon anyway from the pilot chute drag, so it isn't normally all that dangerous. Still, it could be dangerous in rare situations -- say a low emergency exit from a balloon.

Not actually sure who sells them?! Easy enough to make at least. Yes I'd call them link protectors or covers rather than bumpers. A fast moving slider can still go past them.

If we're doing photos of the varieties available, then there are the other style slink covers - see attachment - which allow the slider to be pulled down unlike the 'witches hat' covers. Not sure what name to give them? But they do give some protection to the lines where they attach to the slinks, if the slider is slamming down to that point.

Thanks for coming back here and reporting on what you found, even though it related to something you missed out on understanding properly! D'oh!

No idea. But the pdf scan I have of a packing manual is rev #4, 4-1-84.

Put your hands up too high on opening and on some canopies you'll get the slider grommets rapping your knuckles hard. It's a pretty common thing to learn not do do. You can get your hands up there to react to anything, but don't actually get them in the way of the risers / toggles / slider. (Assuming you're not flying a Mk 1 PC these days.)

Maybe I'm missing something but it sounds normal for a Mirage in the last 10 years or so? They used to have the cutter under the first flap (just ontop of the freebag) but put out a bulletin and moved it to get it 'closer to the pin'. With the cutter above the PC it made the Mirage 'bulgy' (top flap and pin cover flap) until they started making the dished-top pilot chutes to make a bit of a well for the cutter and partially get rid of the bulginess.

I haven't seen others mention that much as a viable option, but I don't mind the idea of doing that. I'll still recommend in general to chop if one isn't comfortable, and a symmetrical rear riser landing as the next option. (This is assuming the one brake is hung up at the brakes free position, not at the brakes set position.) But one can also do a riser and toggle. Flare with the toggle and counter with the riser to fly straight. Little different than using a rear riser to counter a popped toggle on opening. Pull as needed to keep it straight. I did it once at about 2.0 wing loading on a crossbraced canopy and it felt completely natural. I slid the landing in, but I would have too had I been flaring only on rears. So I think it is an acceptable option, IF one is already comfortable 'on rears'.

There are a variety of ways to exit a 182. Just some I've seen: - Both sitting back towards front of plane. Can hook student up on lap or get up on knees. Less turning needed than if facing forward, and I found it easier when in a narrow body 182 in particular. Student can dangle feet aft of a step if small, instructor has L foot on step. Watch out for drogue handle vs. right side of door if one aims too far aft. (I had a very nice automatic drogue deployment once, on one of my first such jumps using this method.) - To me more conventional is facing forward, kneeling. Shuffle forward to the door if coming from the back, student gets legs out one at a time onto step. This assumes a big step. I don't get my legs out at all, just on my R knee and L foot inside door. Left hand can get out to strut if desired. Can do a dive 45 degrees aft, which many do. With or without a single flip. We also sometimes dive straight out to the side. Just twist (roll) say 45 degrees right as you push out. Sort of like doing a solo out of an Otter door - straight out but rolling slightly to present chest to wind. Almost never have a flip but one still dives down nearly vertical. A very stable exit for a DZ that says you can't flip because it isn't allowed by the manufacturer, at all, ever. - Instead of shuffling to the door on knees, one can instead hook up on one's knees, then get the student to sit on one's thighs and put their feet out in front. Uncomfortable but good for bigger students to help get them around the 90 degree corner to get them out the door. What works does depend somewhat on the configuration of the airplane and space available.

For the T-10 MIRPS, here's a photo I took when repacking one, that shows the free spring, weight, and pilot chute (no spring).

To restate: In other words, the geometry is such that when the brake line pulls tight, pulling the toggle slightly upwards until the ring is taut on its attachment tape, it will already have 'bottomed out' in the keepers (either at tip or base or both), applying stress to them. The keepers are therefore too low on the riser relative to the ring.

Hang on, the Sorcerer didn't have a disconnect for a 'normal' reserve activation did it? That's integral to the concept of a full MARD. I'm not sure if it fits in the definition of a MARD or just our understanding of a proper and complete modern MARD. Of course Bill & company would be the inventors of the "Skyhook" specifically, that particular brand. Sometimes we could use a wiki where everyone could receive the appropriate credit for the development of a particular style of device. A lot of this stuff about the origin of the MARD was hashed out in an earlier thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4524970; From that, Mark Hewitt actually made a deal with Bill Booth. But it isn't clear from that whether Mark either had a disconnectable system, or had a working concept for a disconnectable system. Just based on the thread, Mark's contribution is unclear, and I don't think Bill Booth has addressed that. (Sort of like Thomas Edison, despite being brilliant and running the show, didn't actually invent everything exclusively by himself.) Also, the "LES" MARD by Eric Fradet in Basik rigs supposedly pre-dated (1999) the Skyhook (2003?), although it was later taken off the market. (Thank you Skydiverek for mentioning it before.) Eric isn't a fan of MARDs now, based on his very occasional Dz.com posts. More info on the LES would be interesting to see. Eric's MARD patents are out there, but he patented a whole bunch of variations, perhaps trying to cover all the bases.

Funny, I do that all the time with my Sabre 1 (21 yrs) or Maverick (26 yrs) or even getting that way with my Icarus Extreme FX (16 yrs). Even with many hundreds of jumps on each, unlike a reserve, I don't think they're at the edge of blowing up. But to each their own! As for classifieds, it is tough to buy from people who don't understand their gear at all. While they may try to sell for too much, or offer a great deal, it is so hard to get proper info out of them.

I'm really wasting time on this thread today. But anyway: The above is the standard story that I've seen in books. But I kind of wonder if it is entirely true. Certainly, the forward lean would tend to pitch you forward even if not planning to, and they did wear protective equipment. But they would still be drifting with the wind and tend to come down facing at any angle, so they must have had a better plan than feet/knees/face. Below are a couple sections from my acquaintance's tale, from his training in '43. One covers the landings. Another section covers carrying rifles on the jump ... So they had clearly changed things after Crete. One of the books I mentioned above notes that some paratroopers did carry rifles even in the Crete landings. Still, it doesn't change the fact that generally little could be carried, and methods to do so properly, took a long time to get into service. (Sorry, just quickly scanned and not cleaned up.)

@ rob So you nicely tied the parachute part of the thread back together with the gun part of the thread... @ all: A couple links for anyone trying to get books on Allied & Axis WWII parachute designs -- here are the titles of a couple by a Guy Richards: http://en.bookfi.org/book/1343162 http://en.bookfi.org/book/1516888 Don't accidentally click to download unless you mind breaking copyright law. They are really good books, about the technology, not paratrooper war stories.

I think that was the big deal about the T-10 -- it had a deployment bag on the static line. The US had the T-5 in WWII, and at the very end of it, the T-7 which used the same canopy system but a different harness and container I think. The T-10 didn't appear until the early 1950s? Every British parachuting publication of the old days commented on how antiquated the US's deployment system was, canopy first vs. lines first. Which is one reason the Brits stuck with no reserve until, what, the early '50s? Which in turn was antiquated! (While having a staged deployment is great, we certainly know now that it doesn't guarantee no mals.) I don't have proven authoritative sources handy, but the following from someone's website on old military parachutes matches what I've heard before: and: So the T-5 and T-7 had no bag/sleeve, and just dragged the round canopy out by its apex with a break cord attached to the static line. (Sure, skydivers used plenty of canopy-first, no diaper belly reserves for many years, but still the deployments are messy.)