peek

Nice article Annette. I have been thinking about many of these issues for some time now, and have observed some of the problems they create, but you have put them in writing in an interesting way, and have introduced a few others. One thing that I would like to point out is that no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to be a sponsored or professional skydiver or BASE jumper. There are other ways of making a living, thereby allowing your sport to remain fun, (and perhaps safer.)

Got it. I always found that they were useful in even 2 stacks or planes, I suppose because back then we used a variety of canopies and wing loadings. Maybe everything is very balanced now.

Craig, my knowledge and experience with CFS is dated. We used to assume that "stirrups" (front to back cross connectors) were very helpful for large stacks and planes. Is this not the case now?

Sorry, I may have led you to start discussing solutions. I'm suggesting that we do not fully understand the problem yet. When I wrote: "Good Safety Day topic? Instructional Rating Seminar topic?", I meant that experienced skydivers and instructors might want to discuss a plan (on Safety Day, etc.) to question younger jumpers about their expectations of small format camera use.

I don't think I created any new premise. I'm just reporting on what I learned from some of the younger jumpers I talked to about cameras. It would be good for a lot of experienced jumpers to talk to these people with an open mind and find out what they are really thinking. Good Safety Day topic? Instructional Rating Seminar topic?

Your best bet is to find an experienced jumper in your area that knows you and knows your skills. If they are a rigger it would be even better. You can send this person the links to various gear you see on the internet that looks close to what you need, and they can comment on its value and on its appropriateness for you. This will help you get a feel for what is out there and how much it may cost you to find what you need.

I often use both, but use only a chest mount when I'm doing a hop-n-pop. I still wear a chest mount even when I wear a wrist mount because that is what I "grew up" using, and because I have my hook knife pouch sewn to the cushion. I have never bothered to see if there was any difference between them.

Specifically, exactly, how? I struggle with understanding how one can "debrief themselves" from their own POV camera. Truly, I'd appreciate learning more. A video example would be most helpful, with commentary on what you learned from said jump. Douglas, I'm going to respond to your post, but my comments are to everyone. I have been thinking about experienced level and the use of cameras for quite some time. Please note that I will not address the dangers of skydiving with these devices, but am simply trying to explain how they are thought of by some younger jumpers. About a year ago I communicated with another younger jumper who posted about small format cameras, and he too received quite a lot of grief from experienced jumpers. However, what I learned from him was that newer/younger jumpers view small format cameras differently that many of us older people do. Many of us think of video during a skydive (both freefall and canopy flight) as a tool to use to evaluate performance (in a "debrief"). Indeed it is good for that. In fact, so good that many of us cannot imagine why a person would want to take a camera along unless it was used for such a purpose. However, we now have a generation of people that do not necessarily assume that use for their cameras. Cell phones with built-in cameras, and small format cameras are so common that many people wonder why we would not want to use them as often as we can. To them, it is not about the quality of the video. In many cases, the "debrief" that they are referring to is simply use as an "event logger", reminding them of what happened on the skydive, not necessarily showing it, or using it to evaluate performance. It is a way of getting "more for their money" by being able to re-live the jump. Skydiving has managed to become rather expensive, so getting as much for their money makes sense to them. (Once again, I am not discussing the dangers.)

Not that kind of rainbow. No purple. Think Flight Concepts rainbow. Yes, John, and no purple.

Wanna see a really weird skydiving picture of me? Try this: www.mashable.com/2014/12/12/male-idiot-theory-darwin/ Someone pointed me to this article a few days ago. I had no idea it existed. You can see by the photo credits "Image: Flickr, Philip Leara" that it is now a stock photo, but Phil hasn't jumped for ages, so that photo is quite old. I guess I look idiotic enough in that picture that my image fits well into a article titled "Study confirms men take more idiotic risks". By the way, that picture was taken in the middle of me doing a backloop. I'm not trying to invent some new style of flying. Stock photos. Gotta love 'em, huh?

I think we got a lot for our 2 cents. Thanks for your thoughts on the subject. Makes me wonder how often a person gets their canopy into that configuration. We have seen plenty of pictures of canopies that look like they are doing exactly that.

Ian, please bear with me as one who does not know everyone or everything about really high performance swooping... Jay who? In what way did he revolutionize high performance turns? And, I'm thinking back to my original questions and assumptions. To what extent does changing the turn direction have on the swoop, and how do we know?

And I think that is because they are medium point or perhaps bigger. Fine point ball point pens have never worked well for me. I have also found that not pressing too hard while writing also helps.

Understood. I had forgotten that sometimes the force of lift on a riser or risers is greater than the jumper's weight.

While reading the thread "Valkyrie 67 demo first jumps", started by Charlie Mullins, I began thinking about the mechanics of swooping and canopy speed. I notice that many people questioned Charlie's technique of reversing the turn during the swoop. I have "swooped" considerably in the past, but my techniques would be called "old school" at this point in time, so I am asking for the thoughts of swoopers who use what would be called more current techniques. I make this explanation because my questions might otherwise seem rhetorical or smart-ass, but they are not. I am asking them hoping to discuss technique and the physics of the swoop. So here we go: May I assume that the main/only reason for using a turn (other than for alignment) while swooping is to gain speed? If you could gain speed in another manner (and use turning only to align the landing), would this be desirable? (In other words, if you had a "magic handle" that could do that.) May I assume that swoopers at times during the phase of gaining speed may be pulling on one front riser or both? (Assuming a front riser turn) I think that we can all agree that when the rate of turn is reduced by reducing how much the riser is pulled, that the speed will begin to bleed off. Right? The amount that a front riser can be pulled is limited by some things, 1.) the distance that the jumper can actually pull it, determined by things like the length of their arms and the length of the risers, etc., and 2) how far a riser/risers can be pulled without collapsing the canopy, and of course 3.) riser pressure. And after all of those questions... Phew! Is it possible that the bleeding off of speed when reducing the amount of (one) front riser, can be reduced by always pulling on at least one of the risers? (In other words, maximum pull on one riser, transitioning to partial pull on both risers, then transitioning to partial pull on the opposite riser.) I am assuming that maximum pull on a riser cannot be maintained 100% of the time because the jumper must use some of this time to align for the landing. Or to ask a simpler question, are we sure that the technique of reversing the turn during the swoop is really all that inefficient? How do we know? Can we use instrumentation to collect data to prove or disprove this? By the way, one reason that I can think of for reversing a turn would be that it might reduce the possibility of vertigo caused by a prolonged turn affecting the inner ear. (This would of course be highly variable among different people, and may affect so few people that it could be disregarded.)

Yes, but not necessarily an "error". Many (most?) sensors have outputs that change over temperature. Some have built-in temperature compensation but sometimes external temperature compensation is used too.

I meant only temperature data that can be used to help temperature compensate the pressure sensor, not "outside air temperature" like with a vehicle.

How do we know? And what additional parameters are those and how are they used? Temperature data is available, but that is useful mainly to adjust pressure sensor data. Time/timing is available of course. What else, and how is it used?

I would like to think that the software in current AADs is using more than just altitude and descent rate, but maybe it is not. If so, then carry on! You will succeed in designing some rather robust algorithms. (I have never liked using words like "armed" and "disarmed" to describe what the software is doing, but since the manufacturers of the current AADs are not going to tell us what the software is doing, I guess they need to use simplified terms for skydivers.)

I have to say that I think of "modes" in a much different way, and that is, "how many types of dangers should my AAD save me from?" I'm thinking of a mode where the user wants their AAD to save them only from "freefall problems", as in a no-pull while traveling at a high speed below a certain altitude after the AAD has determined that the jumper has been in freefall for a while. This mode would prevent the AAD from firing for any reason after the AAD has determined that a canopy has opened. (This mode would then NOT save them from freefalling away from a collision and cutaway, then becoming unconcious or forgetting to use the reserve.) I'm also thinking of a mode where the AAD does not "arm" until the jumper is at a "normal" altitude for jumping, say 2500 feet. This mode would prevent the AAD from firing if an unusual pressure change were to happen while climbing in the aircraft, caused by a door popping open or something like that. (This mode would then NOT save them from the wing falling off the airplane, getting out at 1500 feet, and forgetting to deploy a parachute.) In other words, I'm tired of hearing about AADs that fired when they should not have. Instead of trying to make the software in the AAD complex enough to try to figure out all of the possibilities of when it should not fire, give the user the choice of modes so that the software does not need to be so complex, thereby increasing the reliability of the software. The problem with "modes" like this of course is that if someone selects one of these modes, and the AAD does not save them and they die, you are going to be sued for allowing a "less safe" mode to be used.

Oh, I was thinking that you had not received the canopy back yet. Does it fly OK? (Edited: Sorry, I missed the part where you said it malfunctioned. Do you know why it malfunctioned? Does it fly OK?) Sometimes a manufacturer might need to use a slightly different fabric (or color) for a repair of an older canopy. The example he was giving you about the CRW canopy having a different material for the center cell was just to let you know that different materials on different cells do not necessarily cause trouble. You will need to jump it to find out what is going on. But you are right, dealing with a company that is in a different country may be more trouble than you want to deal with.

I called the number on the parachutesdirect.com web site and talked to Red this morning. 4/27/15

You don't need no stinking password manager! How hard is it to remember "skydive2015" for all of them?

Those two statements seem to contradict each other, but I'm not going to argue. (The internet is just not very good for this kind of discussion.) To end my part of this discussion, I am just going to say that I believe USPA can survive any lawsuit. (I have no more or no less proof of that than anyone else.) In general, yes. Our Government Relations resources alone are worth our dues.

Unfortunately it is not too practical because of the variations in seatbelt hardware, but that is a very innovative idea. It sounds like something the military could put into place over time, because they have more control over their aircraft and parachute gear.