pchapman

Danielskydiver didn't even fill in his location in his profile, which can be annoying, so I don't know where he's located. But given that he wrote "2.000" rather than "2,000", it is a clue that maybe he isn't under USPA control...

Well it does say "MOST critical". Which leaves the impression that some are less critical than others. And it says "when wingsuiting". Which can leave people wondering whether that means "as opposed to when just regular skydiving". In which case, something like a 3-ring check isn't any more important than usual, but leg strap checks are. (Your overall aim is good; just that picking just the right way to ask the questions is trickier.)

I'm a private pilot and if I were taking up a totally unknown aircraft, I'd sure like to explore the lower end of the envelope too. But for a student parachute, you just don't need to. If you put one hand 3" lower on your turn to final, you won't stall, spin, and burst into flame. With normal arm motion, it is normally nearly impossible to stall the canopy no matter what you do. It is all pretty simple at that level. You will want to practice flares, under the supervision of the guy at the radio. Getting the flare just right does take a little practice, and the full effect is only gained by having the ground as reference -- ie, once per jump on landing. The guy assisting on the radio is going to have a tough time if you open up at 10,000'. Later on in your jumping career you may want to do such high 'hop and pops' to learn more about more advanced canopies. So for now, a minute or two of canopy control practice per jump, is enough to get you on your way pretty safely.

Never assume anything. Ask your instructors or experienced jumpers before you do it. That's what he's bloody well doing, asking people here. "Assume" can be used as part of a question, as a starting point in conversation. Even if he didn't use a question mark on that particular sentence, while doing so on two others. I assume I've made my point against the "don't assume" cries we often hear on dz.com. (?)

Note that Davelepka said "no", but also said, "provided that..." It is those details that are important!

@D8055: Since you're the rigger in this case, I can see you'd be a bit pissed at the thread title! "Zero" airspeed? Hell, flying backwards with line twists, and using a skyhook, he had that reserve deploying well infront of him with a nice little tailwind. No wonder the Sigma tandem reserve rocked. (The video shows him basically vertical during the deployment, but he can't do much about that when using an RSL/Skyhook from stable flight. The bag slides past the back of his helmet since he has arched. The student's knees are up during the chop. Chopping while flying backwards is an interesting situation, when thinking about standard rules on arching and stability, plus situations where the reserve opening time and method varies between Skyhook, RSL only, or manual reserve activation...)

I'd say glide ratio also has a lot to do with how the canopy is trimmed. It can be trimmed nose low for speed, or nose up for floating around more like a paraglider. John S.'s comment about wing loading being a key to glide is kind of confusing. It is true in one way and isn't in another. Technically, if everything else is the same, increasing the wing loading on a canopy or other gliding vehicle won't change the glide angle; it'll just go faster along that flight path. But in skydiving if you jump the same canopy model in a big version vs. a little version, the little one at higher loading will have a much worse glide since some things don't scale down (eg, the lines may be the same thickness), and especially, the suspended load (the jumper) is going to stay the same and is a big source of drag when flying faster. Small, highly loaded canopies do have a low glide ratio (e.g, 2.3) when brakes are off, more so for those designed to be ground hungry, trimmed nose low.

Everyone's opinion will differ. I felt I had no problem when I did 10-20 jumps a year for 5 years, as a junior jumper. BUT, I already had about 150 jumps in a couple years before being away from the sport so much. I felt I was past the initial hump, that time where one really wants to be active, in order to progress enough to learn the basics about safety. If one isn't around the DZ much, one has to accept a lower level of involvement, as you won't make the personal connections as much, and it will be harder to get onto dives you want to be on. But that may be OK, especially if you are trying to keep your jumps to those that really are appropriate to your skill level. I certainly did a lot of solo freefly practice, high hop and pops, and similar, among my jumps when I wasn't jumping much. Aviation background won't help with everything in skydiving, but it can help in some areas (weather, flying the pattern) and can provide a good background in decision making, evaluating risks, and having the mindset of planning for abnormal events. I'd say that if you get serious about skydiving, at least try to make it your focus (for your recreational time) for one season, get as many quality jumps as you can, and really get your head into the game.

If going the airspeed indicator route: And then you have to understand that most airspeed indicators will read an IAS that does not change with altitude (despite changes in True Airspeed), while the rate of descent (whether barometric or gps based) will change with the air density at altitude, so one has to know how to correct the data for air density (using pressure altitudes and approximations of average airmass temperature) so that one is either comparing calibrated speeds for ISA conditions or uncalibrated speeds for local density altitude. If that isn't crystal clear already... then yes it is messy to calculate properly.

re Cold air Yeah the shock of cold on the face can cause a reflex for some people that makes it hard to breathe. There are one or two threads on it somewhere on dz.com. One gets used to it. Or maybe see if you can get your face partially out into the airflow on jumprun, to let you acclimatize a bit, before the actual moment-of-truth exit.

Based on this thread, you do seem to have a bizarre need to twist words to suit your own purposes, to deliberately create confusion and misunderstanding, perhaps to become the center of attention, instead of using your knowledge to clarify and explain. If people start to talk about issue A, you start to talk about issue B, and claim that the others are really talking about issue B, and in so doing confusing A with B... You also offer aerodynamic explanations that are bizarre, or use bizarre meanings of words, even given that English isn't your first language. (As a private pilot with an aeronautical engineering degree and paragliding and gliding experience, I can follow aerodynamics discussions too.)

I don't think I'll argue it any more, but your definition of "up" is a different than most people.

Don't be silly. The argument is clearly about whether a wing suit pilot can temporarily climb due to a dive & pullup. It's not about whether they can launch from an aircraft or cliff and fly away upwards on magical thermals... Your hangglider clearly has the descent rate, drag, lift, etc. to do a dive and pull up to climb temporarily (in still air). Wingsuits and wingsuit pilots have taken time to get to that sort of performance.

Your DZ in Canada is USPA not CSPA. The USPA doesn't require any particular jump numbers for camera, they just 'recommend' a C license. And for filming students, one 'should' have 300 group freefall jumps and 50 filming non-students. So technically there's no rule against what you are doing, is that correct?

Pencil packing is a myth. You use a pen.

For the record, that link that was posted is the JumpShack / Parachute Labs packing video, part 1. And Deathwish, reserves are NOT typically flatpacked. They are essentially propacked, laid on the ground, carefully reflaked and everything carefully aligned, and have nose & tail arranged for a faster opening rather than a slower opening as with most mains.

And that DZ (PST) has no door on their rear door 206. So winter skydiving is even more of an adventure. But that's the place to go for some fun in the snow...

I don't know British rules, but the 1994 TSE Teardrop 1 pin manual (still current today) says the gear "should" be returned for re-certification after 10 years. Not "shall" -- so there's absolutely no reason to do it, no life limit at all, IF the UK allows that distinction. ( For a 1991 rig, under the US system, life limits in the 1994 manual would not apply anyway -- you'd have to see what the 1991 manual said.) PS - You "should" brush your teeth after every meal too.

Nice point. Then one gets into whether a weird pull direction is defined as normal operation or not, so the rules aren't very helpful! Just about any pack job could fail the test if one pulls the handle into the harness pocket... Riggers don't try to get a high pull force when testing after a repack; we normally try to get the lowest possible number given the tight rigs today.

Interesting to know. Personally, I'm glad the designer wasn't so petty as to follow some hidebound rules designed to be psychologically manipulative or something. From looking at airshow posters on the web, they have airplanes going every which way. Seems like the ones with outward pointing images look better, giving an appearance of more space and movement. For example, a 'bomb burst' of airplanes pointing outward looks to me better than a bunch of planes pointing inwards towards the world's biggest midair collision. But I don't claim to know anything about composition! (And where there are larger airplane images, or a formation depicted, they pretty much have to point "outward" as they can't be small enough to point towards the center. ) Still we can agree that the nationals design is rather "busy"!

Generally, perhaps true. But one wonders in specific cases whether the airfoil is maintained quite as well with ZPX: Aerodyne stopped making crossbraced Sensei's with the ZPX option. Why exactly, I don't know.

Re: "Quit your bitchen already and go get a riggers ticket" It makes no sense to need to learn to set up a sewing machine and sew a proper patch in a canopy, in order to pack for students or experienced jumpers. That is required of someone getting their rigging ticket. It is pretty clear (in most peoples' opinions) that the existing rule in the US is stupid. How to fix it is more complex. The FAA moves glacially slow, but occasionally things in skydiving do change (tandems not Experimental, new AC105, 180 day cycle, etc). Still, as Stratostar noted, when the FAA last clarified "under direct supervision" it looks like they showed no interest in easing the requirements of the rule by broadening the definition in any way. It would probably take a concerted effort by the USPA or PIA to have any hope of changing things in the long run.

So the question is, is there any rule requiring a container company to approve AADs? (Rather than just allowing them to do so.) I can't think of any FAA rule, but I could be wrong. The PIA's statement in 2011 about the Argus mess doesn't pin it down one way or another, even though it talks about container manufacturers' approval of AADs. (http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/ToAllHarnessContainerManufacturers.pdf) PIA TS-112 "Harness/Container – AAD Installation Test Protocol" is about approvals, but doesn't address whether any AAD must be. Nor is the test protocol required. Just my opinion: If you think there isn't a requirement, then pack the rig up, because the manual doesn't say you can't. Also, even if there were an FAA requirement, does that matter in Australia? You probably only need to make sure you aren't breaking the container manufacturers' rules, if the APF requires you to follow them. If you don't care about the FAA, then you have an easier time, since the manual doesn't prohibit Vigils. The only issue would be is if you agonize over some statement that CYPRES' are approved, and does that imply that others not mentioned are not? (Whether or not they came on the market after the manual was written.) (NAA has some other compatibility issues: Maybe just my computer, but Java or something on their site crashed both Firefox and Chrome...)

I was only trying to address the forward/aft C of G, not trying to address anything vertical. It does make sense that if the chest strap is loosened a lot and a jumper leans way forward, yes that should lower the C of G. (As Jerry says, fore and aft the C of G will stay below the 3 rings, so the leg straps will kick back as the jumper leans forward onto the loose chest strap.)

Wow. That's cool, or weird, or something. I knew someone who actually put their Onyx into the DZ fire pit at the end of their first season with one. (Not I would have done that personally, but it shows that people vary in how they value the Onyx!)