pchapman

This came up when I started looking into the 19 tandem commandments... which apparently now are 16, based on a seminar at the PIA symposium last week. (I wasn't there and don't know the details yet.) UPT is terrible at answering emails, but I got an answer from Mark Procos (who represented UPT at the 19 Commandments process) after asking about the Commandments and currency. He said the currency requirements are those in the manual. The Sigma manual just shows the old requirements for "Currency" and "Recertification" (Chap 1 Section 2). That particular chapter was last modified in 2007 according to the file date on the download version, which I re-downloaded just a week or two ago. So the answer appears to be 25 jumps per year. Despite my asking, I did not get an answer on whether UPT believes in any of the other 19 commandments. If they do not believe in one, do they believe in the others? Perhaps the 19 Commandments are simply "recognized ideal practices" in their mind, not absolute requirements. Although I'm not Strong rated, I noticed on the Strong web page that they do follow the Commandments version of currency requirements (15 j/year; different rules for

That displays a terrible grasp of basic aerodynamics. On the other hand, it doesn't mean you can't swoop. (You into BASE? What with your tower job, and skydivers being more about following rules these days, BASE would be a good outlet for your energy.

Certification issues are one of those things that can act as quite a barrier to access to markets. Even if one also understands the issue of trying to uphold a certain production standard. It would be one thing if the US Military say had some higher standards, but it isn't vital to the national interest to prohibit Americans from jumping foreign sport skydiving gear. The rest of the aviation world will have restrictions too depending on geography and international agreements. But it is curious to see that for example in the ASTM Light Sport Aircraft category, the popular Flight Design aircraft, which have a US distributor, are designed in Germany and built and assembled in the Ukraine. So US citizens can fly around in a 2 place, 100hp, 140 mph aircraft built in the Ukraine.... while it seems impossible for a Ukrainian company build sport parachuting rigs that Americans could use at home. Rules....

Just get used to the constant screaming and gesticulating from others as soon as the light goes green.

Yes, as I said. Wasn't trying to imply any disk.

Instead of standard grommets in plastic stiffeners, I hear they do something like the metal loops used on a Sigma main container (around the drogue disk)? Less stacked height.

Nice to hear that someone knows of the flip through occurring during a jump on opening, as nobody wanted to believe me that I was sure the rings were OK in the plane! (A C-182 with I and another instructor looking across the 3 ring at each other.) Makes sense that it somehow could involve uneven tension, with a loss of tension on one side during the trapdoor, with made worse if there's any unevenness like a shoulder down.

Not sure actually if it is. We don't have quite as much in the way of formal lists. While gear inspection is taught in general, and the 3 ring of course, I don't think hands on practice is actually done to assemble one. (Although that's a great way to actually learn, rather than just by looking at the thing.)

Ok, that's quite the revival of an old thread. I see the video shows a flip through existing before exit, on a Strong rig, for a tandem instructor who was probably sitting with nobody looking at him due to how the seating was in that plane. (Other than the guy in the copilot seat turning and videoing the tandem exits.)

So, without fighting about things, what is the status of these canopies? They are actually made for student jumps? In service somewhere, not just prototypes? What kinds of DZs? What kinds of rigs do they fit into? (The crossbracing will of cource help make up for the low square footage.) If they can be stood up no problem, it would be great some day to see footage of such canopies in service. What kind of instructor qualifications do DZ's have for such canopies? I hear that at a Tandem Commandments seminar at the PIA (in the last couple days), this kind of canopy was specifically mentioned as the style that the manufacturers would not approve in their rigs.

No arguments about the rant about people being too busy to really teach. But that is interesting about the A license card including 3 ring assembly. (I'm CSPA so am not always up on the latest USPA stuff.)

You can't stop speculation. The speculation has been pretty wild indeed and sometime silly, so ignore it if you like. If people aren't part of the investigation and don't have the video to watch, what are they supposed to do? Of course they will speculate, including about body positions, freefall speeds, rigging, gear standards, and statements from police. The fact still remains that AAD's did not save two people with very different rigs. Yet everyone in the industry has some expectation that AAD's should usually be able to save people. So yes it is a big deal when the AAD & reserve system don't work in the distance people expect them to.

News from the PIA convention is that the manufacturers have agreed on an amended 16 commandments. I don't have details yet, but they were presented and discussed at one of the lecture sessions.

That's according to a Sheriff's detective. Even if he saw the video, people may have different opinions on whether to fully trust such a source's description of events. I don't know either way.

I'll have to slightly disagree with the reply that said: It's a well intentioned idea, and happens to some degree, but taken fully: No way, that would happen only in some ideal world. In reality, the instructor gets paid for a jump, and not to hold an all-weekend gear & rigging seminar. Yes the instructors should be teaching you about gear jump by jump. So that at some point, they can have you check your own RSL or see that the pin is properly seated or make sure the chest strap buckle is done up the right way. You'll need to be able to do a full supervised gear check later in your student jumps. I don't know the rules where ever you are, but where I am (Canada), students going for their license typically demonstrate a gear check, catching some deliberate errors. So some level of gear knowledge is expected to be taught by that point. But other than that, you aren't going to see photos or rigs deliberately modified to demonstrate errors. Nor will an instructor take you around the DZ to see the variation in 30 different rigs, to look a closing loops, different flap orders on rigs you aren't currently jumping, all the different line types, different levels of fuzziness on brake lines, different RSL configurations, details of bridle to deployment bag attachment and the different types of damage that can occur there, and so on. Another example would be that you would be taught as a student how to inspect 3 rings for basic assembly errors, but students don't disassemble rigs, so you'll likely never actually have one apart by the time you are licensed. You'll just have to learn that sort of stuff from others in your down time at the DZ. Otherwise you'll be at 200 jumps and asking a rigger how to assemble 3-rings. The rigger will roll his eyes and mutter how the kids these days don't get taught anything. But there just isn't any formal spot in the instructional program to learn these things. It looks like you are ready to ask all the detailed little questions (eg, about how much bridle slack is OK). Great. So you'll just have to go ask the questions. Instructors won't always have time to answer in full detail, but do ask if it is something relevant to the gear you are about to jump on the next jump. Other skydivers at the DZ (especially of lower experience level) won't always have the right answers, but slowly you can build up your database of information and try to sort out what the best answers on gear really are...

Traditionally Vigils shut down after 14 hours except if they are moved and think they are airborne (+ or - 150 ft ), in which case they can stay on indefinitely. That's what is in the current manual. But I'm informed in another thread by skydivesg that: Can someone point to a Vigil document about this, for confirmation? This is an interesting change in behaviour. They still say to turn off the Vigil before moving it in a closed vehicle, in case of it being triggered, so it is still a "turn off before you drive home" device. But it means people with the latest versions won't drive from one DZ on Saturday evening to another DZ and have premature Vigil fire there Sunday. A rare event but it has happened. The applicable part of the Vigil II manual on Vigil's site as of today: Please correct me if I'm wrong about anything here. Sigh. So much for Reading the Fucking Manual to educate oneself. (Not picking on Vigil. I just had a similar situation with Cypres, where one of their web pages apparently overrides all the manuals.)

Ah, on the luggage, not something hidden all the camo stuff. Looks like a sewing machine hiding in the background too.

As others have said, watch the slider. When one is a novice psychopacking, it is easy to push the slider away from the stops as one rolls the canopy up towards the slider - for example if one doesn't stay at that bottom end of the canopy to control it.

That was the classic example I think. There was another incident too that highlights the dangers of getting snagged between two canopies, even if it wasn't related to catching a cutaway canopy. A few years ago a student in South Africa was badly injured and I think died soon after. The jumper's main risers or lines were caught on his leg while he was under his reserve (after some static line exit issue), he got stretched out in a downplane, and probably had no chance to reach or deal with the lines on his leg. So the danger isn't just with small canopies. Scare 'em for safety day: [inline 2009SouthAfrica-studentbetweenmain,reserve.jpg] Edit: Dave L, wasn't the guy you were thinking of, the one caught the main canopy, not just a freebag? Still, if we had more stories of freebag catching issues, it would help emphasize the point about danger. Edit: And while I'm at it, one can also point out the dangers in just following a freebag down. Lots of turning without looking where one is going and possibly getting in a bad setup for landing, way too low. (Been there myself.) Know when to save yourself.

Catching canopies is pretty dumb. Catching freebags though, that's one of those things which they recommend against, but one gets recognition among peers if one does it. If you don't get it tangled in your lines with the pilot chute inflated off centre, and don't whack your kneecap off the spring at 35 mph, you've shown off some skill. Hell, I've got a pic of a me, a freebag, and the DZO congratulating me when I came down after a video jump with the freebag off one of his tandems. Still, a good explanation of why it is dangerous, rather than just "don't do it", would be useful for jumpers to know. There is danger to the game. Edit: My point is that education about the reasons for something is important. Otherwise there's that gap between being told never to do something, and seeing the cool kids celebrating when someone does it.

Speaking of 2011 or thereabouts, I wonder (to no one in particular) how that new Strong tandem rig is doing? It would be interesting too if anyone would be able to talk about major industry lawsuits. Whatever happened to the one against Strong for the lost passenger, or against Airtec or SSK for the girl in California who didn't pull? I'm not trying to be harsh on companies, but things that were once big news sometimes slip away and one is left wondering what has happened.

John Dunham of Second Chantz used to work with Gary Douris (RIP) of Free Flight Enterprises. And by poking around on the latter company's site, I found the statement "Free Flight Enterprises has produced parachutes for Ultralight and Light-Sport Aircraft ("LSA") for over 20 years. A new line of models will be available soon. www.secondchantz.blogspot.com" So it looks like the two companies are collaborating again. It would be interesting to learn more about the canopies.

I found a manual from the FFP (french federation) summarizing specs for reserves from all overe. It has the max recommended weight for the Transfair as 170 lbs / 77 kg, and a size of 128 ft sq officially, or 120 by PIA measurement. Introduced 1990. (The document's name from the web is Copie_de_compatibilite_materiel-_secours.pdf) To fix a typo in another post in this thread: For later PdF reserves, one is talking about the Techno not Tempo. This has been a good week for finding info on weird old reserves!

The Tempos sometimes had a built-in turn that needed a lot of brake to correct. In the video she stops it from turning, lets the brake up, then it starts to try to turn again, so she counters it again and lets up on the brake, and so on -- I don't think she really was aware of what the issue was. Then having slowed the canopy with brake shortly before landing, that didn't help when it came time to flare. Tempos aren't made any more but were popular in the 1990s for their value pricing. And they did work to save one's life.

For reference the 19 Commandments are at: http://parachutistonline.com/safety_training/the_rating_corner/tandem-commandments