johnmatrix

I've just noticed there is some sort of corrosion, or at least some sort of mold-like residue that is not immediately removable, on the Cypres loop finger trapping tool I have. Is it unsafe? (I don't want to use it anyway - I don't like using corroded things) What can get rid of it? (am having some success with a kitchen scouring pad) What can prevent it? (I've been told light sewing machine oil is OK to apply to packing tools) Any other advice for storing or maintaining packing tools? The tool in question was sitting on my desk for about 2 weeks before I noticed the residue on it. It is possible it may have contacted water during that time.

1. Guy almost dies 2. Valuable technical discussion on DZ.com wingsuit forum. 3. ????? 4. Brand war

This guy was on TV in Australia this morning. http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/-/watch/27553939/skydiver-s-survival/ It would have been good to get some better questions from the interviewer, she really is shithouse.

Would someone really be able to climb the suspension lines to try and untangle that? Honest question - what could one really do at that stage? I mean sure, never give up, try and climb the lines by all means, but I don't reckon it could be done. Perhaps with a thicker line type it could be...?

What is that suit at around the 30 second mark?

That is seriously awesome!

I was thinking that too - but if Mr Donald is correct in in his altitudes that would mean he re-connected with the plane at 2,000 ft. It could theoretically happen if the plane was in a very steep dive, but to climb into a steeply diving plane at 2,000, regain control and pull out of the dive before impact...? I'm not a pilot but that sounds pretty hardcore... (or implausible)

Speaks for itself... anyone here got an opinion on this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grahame_Donald Donald also became famous for his miraculous escape from death having fallen from his Sopwith Camel at 6000 feet in 1917. On that fateful summer's afternoon he attempted a new manoeuvre in his Sopwith Camel and flew the machine up and over, and as he reached the top of his loop, hanging upside down, his safety belt snapped and he fell out. He was not wearing a parachute as a matter of policy. Incredibly, the Camel had continued its loop downwards, and Donald landed on its top wing. He grabbed it with both hands, hooked one foot into the cockpit and wrestled himself back in, struggled to take control, and executed "an unusually good landing". In an interview given 55 years later he explained, "The first 2,000 feet passed very quickly and terra firma looked damnably 'firma'. As I fell I began to hear my faithful little Camel somewhere nearby. Suddenly I fell back onto her." ref: On a Wing and a Prayer by Joshua Levine

Interesting, thanks. Recently someone told me about a PR company saying their viewership figures seemed a bit high - they were higher than the total population of the country the data was for.

+ 1 People just need to be clear on exactly what it is that is being counted. The data is too easy to screw up and manipulate. Is it possible some of this is based on the Chinese government's assertions about viewership for CCTV?

It was live streamed on CCTV's website as well.

I know I just looked it up on Amazon (!) - seems weird, I'm pretty sure the copy I have was only about $50, but I got it 10 years ago. That was before I started getting books a lot cheaper, ARRR

For anyone really (REALLY) obsessed with this stuff, there is a great book out there on the history of viewing ratios, 'Widescreen Cinema' by John Belton.

Just a point - (and let's imagine for a second that everyone here said 1.17 was OK) - it seems you are talking here about a canopy that you do not want to jump. It seems that you know you're safer under a 190, the 190 is the one you'd rather have, and you're asking if the riskier choice is OK because it is easier and cheaper for you to purchase....? I reckon you know the answer to your question already. You will find a 190 if you keep an eye out, or else just get one brand new. Like you said they are hard to find, it's not like you're going to lose a lot of money selling it. Also, peace of mind is very important - having it allows you to have more fun.

Awesome, thanks! - it's actually spelled 'Nazgul' in the books but from I can see the Hobbit was also his design as well. Sounds like Mr Gargano had good taste in literature.

\m/

But if the canopy is at line stretch surely it would have been slowing him down a little bit - even if only a tiny, tiny bit... ?

These cartoons are classic! That one of the door as a face with the green light staring is hilarious. I don't think I'll ever see that light go on the same way again.

Thanks Jerry! So the TSO is the primary document and then NAS-804 was like an appendix or something? The TSO gets mentioned a lot on this site but not the NAS, I think I saw somewhere it was superseded by one of the later TSOs....?

Thanks Steve! I remember reading that in the 'scary stories' thread and was thinking I might have to read the entire thread again to find it. There is an APF RAC concerning the pull force for female parachutists here: http://hq.apf.asn.au/images/5/5d/502B.pdf It seemed from that that the max had been set right for the majority of men (but unfortunately too high for some women) but that passage from Poynters indicates the limit was set too high for a large percentage of men too. I had a vision of the regulations being drafted quickly one afternoon by a 250lb drill instructor who thought 44lbs was a reasonable pull force, and never being further looked at. I guess we're talking about a time here where things didn't work as they do now and there was a bit of trial and error to work through. There is more info on other studies in Poynters 9.3.2 but not much more about the side mount systems. http://bit.ly/ofR4gx From what I can see about the side pull chest mount systems it would have been a bit harder to get another hand on it. Thanks for the responses.

I came across this bit in Poynter's parachute manual that I'm curious about: p423 (Section 7.46) "On some side pull containers, pulls of as much as 80 lbs have been recorded and this is particularly disturbing after reviewing an Air Force report on muscle strength: 50% of the male Air Force personnel tested could not pull 22 lbs (the FAA maximum as set forth in NAS-804) to the side, 95% couldn't pull 43 lbs and 5% couldn't even pull 12 lbs." Does anyone know how it came to be that the FAA max of 22lbs was set that high? Or was this set for a different system before side pull containers became widely used? The google is struggling with NAS-804. From what I can see it began in 1949 alongside TSO-C23b. Is that right?

Wasn't there a bunch of skydivers who went around robbing banks in the early 90s?

Is this some other old gear, or just a LOTR reference? (nothing wrong with LOTR references obviously!)

I have an X228 sitting on my floor right now, I'm thinking about giving it a go just cos I'm curious. Problem is it doesn't have a slider. Do you reckon I could use it with a ZP slider? Also, it's got a few big holes in the top skin, with broken masking tape around them. I was going to use some gaffer tape to patch them up but now that I've been reading up on it here it feels like I could be defacing a collector's item. Any advice?

No worries, but this is all stuff that you'll pick up easily after being in the sport for just a short time. Personally I reckon you should start writing down some thoughts now because jumping can change your life, and it'll definitely change the way you think about skydivers. You might find yourself thinking a lot differently about it in a few months to how you think now. There's a lot of good stuff to read on this site too although it may not be obvious at first.