FAR's and wingsuit landing w/o a parachute?

[AndyMan 7]

I used to be pretty heavily into downhill racing, and I can't stress enough that it seems very unlikely for someone to survive landing a wingsuit on a ski hill.

The relative zero horizontal airspeed is only half the equation. Even if performed perfectly, you still end up sliding down a ski slope on your belly at over 100MPH (combined horizontal + vertical airspeed).

Skiiers often have life threatening injuries from accidents that usually happen around 60-70mph. Few skiiers have survived accidents at over 80MPH...

The only way I could ever see someone surive landing a wingsuit is if it were involve some kind of runway, with "landing gear" of some kind.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

From flying, I can tell you that there is a huge difference between maintaining a certain glideslope and putting an aircraft onto a runway - even if you have power, it's a flat runway, and the runway is ten thousand times the area you need to land safely.

While it takes more than throttle and elevator trim, landing a Cessna 172 without cross-winds is not difficult. A feel for the sight picture from landing parachutes translates very well although the controls are very different.

For your first wingsuit landing you also have experience flying relative to things other than the runway.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Skiiers often have life threatening injuries from accidents that usually happen around 60-70mph. Few skiiers have survived accidents at over 80MPH...

Those are accidents that often involve body parts or skiis sticking in and flipping the athlete onto the snow in a bad way. An intentional wing suit landing where the pilot doesn't dig in wouldn't involve that.

Some sort of belly sled should prevent that. An elastic connection between pilot and sled would also accomodate terrain/snow variations better.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Motorcycle racers go down at high speeds and walk away unijured all the time.

Derek

[billvon 2,478]

>A feel for the sight picture from landing parachutes translates very well
>although the controls are very different.

I think the difference between landing a 30mph parachute on level ground and landing a 100mph wingsuit on a sloping uneven flat-white surface might be significant. There are times I can't see the ski slope when I'm 10 feet from it due to lack of contrast; trying to see depth at 200 feet and 100mph might significantly more tricky.

I'm sure it's doable. But I think it will be done survivably by someone who think that it's NOT straightforward, someone who puts the effort into learning all the differences.

[LouDiamond 1]

Lets no forget that you would also be leading with your head. last time I checked, skiers and motor cylce riders don't usually make contact with their heads first. The best description of this would be similar to you hanging yourself horizontal under a canopy and trying to land it. With the current technology you can land a wingsuit ONCE and then it's all over.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[SkiD_PL8 0]

They said they are working on, I believe 3 different items to make the landing work which tells me they understand that is going to be difficult and are adapting to try to make it possible.

Greenie in training.

[SkiD_PL8 0]

Also you guys are assumeing there will be no gimmick. You don't know what he is planning, maybe he is gonna fly it into a 500ft tall block of lime jell-o. Bill you are very knowledgeable and from reading your posts I have come to put faith in alot of the things you say. Sometimes you just need to think outside of the box, or we would all still be jumping rounds.

Greenie in training.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

>A feel for the sight picture from landing parachutes translates very well
>although the controls are very different.

I think the difference between landing a 30mph parachute on level ground and landing a 100mph wingsuit on a sloping uneven flat-white surface might be significant. There are times I can't see the ski slope when I'm 10 feet from it due to lack of contrast; trying to see depth at 200 feet and 100mph might significantly more tricky.

VSO on some (many? most?) jets is arround 100 MPH

The problems I've had with depth perception skiing have come from poor light due to clouds or shadows which shouldn't be the case. Yellow and polarizing glasses help. Runway markings with dyed snow could help. Other visual indicators could be used.

Quote

I'm sure it's doable. But I think it will be done survivably by someone who think that it's NOT straightforward, someone who puts the effort into learning all the differences.

Lots of research needs to go into finding an appropriate site with outs, lots of technical issues like we've been pointing out need to be addressed, you need to figure out simulated landings, you need to prepare for the psychological stresses, ground effect should be an issue, etc. That makes it a huge project.

While extremely dangerous, I don't think flying the final approach and landing are going to be where the skill is required. Objectively all the big problems seem to be in reducing the chances for and consequences of failures.

[billvon 2,478]

>VSO on some (many? most?) jets is arround 100 MPH

Agreed; and their strut/trailing-link mains assemblies can absorb a very significant impact partly due to those higher speeds and corresponding higher sink rates. Picture a hard landing in an MD-80 with its 2 feet of shock absorber travel; now picture what that same sort of impact speed would do to your ribs.

>The problems I've had with depth perception skiing have come from poor
> light due to clouds or shadows which shouldn't be the case. Yellow and
> polarizing glasses help. Runway markings with dyed snow could help.
> Other visual indicators could be used.

I agree there. It will be tough (since the first error you make there might well be fatal) but it's doable, given enough effort.

>While extremely dangerous, I don't think flying the final approach and
> landing are going to be where the skill is required. Objectively all the big
> problems seem to be in reducing the chances for and consequences of
> failures.

If everything goes perfectly, no skill, luck or preparation is required. But the reason that flying airplanes is so safe isn't because the pilots have the reflexes of a ninja; it's because they plan for (and train for) all the problems you can have during flight. Indeed, you can measure the skill of a pilot not by how well he manipulates the autopilot buttons, or how fast he can pull back on the yoke, but how he reacts to problems.

Whoever does this stunt will have the skill to deal with the problems that WILL arise. If he anticipated and trains for dealing with enough of them (and chooses the right ones to train for) he might just survive the attempt.

[MakeItHappen 15]

I feel like arm-chair quarterbacking….

The HOT tip would be to have mini-skis on from your knees to past your toes.
This can easily be worn during the jump without interfering. The curl of the tips could be modified for a better fit.

So what you do as you come into landing on the perfect 26 degree snow-laden slope is FLARE your landing. DOH? Homer Simpson told me that all lifting aircraft use a flared landing. He said "You know - it slows down aircraft and those new-fangled parachutes."

You sit up and catch as much air as you can just a few feet above the surface.

Touchdown is on the mini-knee-skis. You can go really fast. Your body acts as the air brakes.

Couple of caveats tho…

I'd first learn how to ski on my knees in a wingsuit.
I'd practice on the same slope.
I'd probably have to have a mod for the practice skis or have to take them off because getting on and off the lift would be difficult.

I'd practice my approaches from a 2-person hang-glider. Fly that glider right down the slope, cut myself away, land on my knee-skis and skid to a stop in front of the press people at the bottom of the hill.

I'd work out in a gym under Arnold for several years to build the strength required to act as a speed brake for myself. Build those quads.

I'd say 'Ahhhhh----shit' if I tumbled over on my back and then started sliding down the hill 'Why didn't I put skis on my back too or maybe one of those saucer thingies??'

But now that I think of it, a controlled pitch-over to land on a snow slider attached to my back might work too. I could play dead-ants on the way down the hill.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Don't try to force your silly skydiving club's rules on me...

But you think it is just fine to force you silly out look on rules on the rest of society.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Designer 0]

Dito,to jump out without a rig is just nuts!All in All,the engineering has to be right!Stuff does happen though.So,we will see what we will see.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

They said they are working on, I believe 3 different items to make the landing work which tells me they understand that is going to be difficult and are adapting to try to make it possible.

Is one of the three a parachute?

[nicknitro71 0]

Quote

Motorcycle racers go down at high speeds and walk away unijured all the time.

I went down at around 100mph when I used to race motorcyles. I got away with only few bruses. Yes I was very lucky. I slid for about 50 yards on asphalt and then hit the sand and start rolling like a burrito.

By the way the FAR does not say anything about parachute deployment.

The stunt at the WFFC, as wrong as it was, did not break any FAR rules. The passenger left the plane with an approved parachute.

Memento Audere Semper

903

[goose491 0]

Quote

Agreed; and their strut/trailing-link mains assemblies can absorb a very significant impact partly due to those higher speeds and corresponding higher sink rates. Picture a hard landing in an MD-80 with its 2 feet of shock absorber travel; now picture what that same sort of impact speed would do to your ribs.

A wonderful comparison. Except that an MD-80 series jet weighs sixty-one and a half thousand pouds empty. They have an average Maximum Landing Weight of 131 thousand pounds. So when you see one touching down, you can assume it weighs somwhere in between those two figures.

Your forward speed during descent to land an MD-80 series is something along the lines of 250 knots. Your descent rate is 17 to 6 miles per hour, flared out to 4.5 - 2.3 miles per hour at the runway threshold.

Your average man weighs 188lbs. He will never have a forward speed of 250knots... what are we saying? About 120 at best? What are the slowest *maintained* descent rates we've seen? 18-30 miles per hour-ish?

So admitedly, your man is coming down 4 times faster then the jet is at touchdown... So we can forget the "higher sink rates" presented in your comparison. More importantly, he is also weighing in well under five hundredths the weight of the jet... AND landing on a slope.

[Silly Comparison] Go ahead and use those ribs as shock absorbers. I'm thinking they almost scale my friend. Because those planes are some thirty feet tall. The shocks compress some 2 feet (as per you)... that's 6%... translate that to the human male and give him an average height (thusly 'thickness' from chest to back) of a foot. 6% of that is three quarters of an inch. I think I was compressed more than than that the last time I got a bear-hug. [End Silly Comparison]

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[billvon 2,478]

> flared out to 4.5 - 2.3 miles per hour at the runway threshold.

Right. And sometimes when the pilot's not on the ball they hit at a vertical speed of 15 mph - which is when the landing gear justifies all the money they spent on it.

>More importantly, he is also weighing in well under five hundredths
>the weight of the jet..

Ah, but deceleration doesn't care. Deceleration cares only about speed and distance to decelerate. And the thing that will tear your aorta away from your heart is deceleration.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

By the way the FAR does not say anything about parachute deployment.

Yes, they do:

FAA definitions:

”Parachute means a device used or intended to be used to retard the fall of a body or object through the air.”

“Parachute jump means a parachute operation that involves the descent of one or more persons to the surface from an aircraft in flight when a aircraft is used or intended to be used during all or part of that descent.”

Derek

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

By the way the FAR does not say anything about parachute deployment.

Yes, they do:

FAA definitions:

”Parachute means a device used or intended to be used to retard the fall of a body or object through the air.”

“Parachute jump means a parachute operation that involves the descent of one or more persons to the surface from an aircraft in flight when a aircraft is used or intended to be used during all or part of that descent.”

Derek

Think you got a typo in there. Anyhow, you could deploy and then cut away and satisfy that criterion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ernokaikkonen 0]

FAR this and FAR that. How about thinking outside the box for a bit?

Or rather, outside the US... I'm sure there are plenty of countries that have little or no restrictions on parachute ops. Or parachuteless ops, as it may be.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Think you got a typo in there.

I don't, the FAA does, check their web page.

Quote

Anyhow, you could deploy and then cut away and satisfy that criterion.

I'm faily certain that when they say, "all or part of that descent", they mean either the entire descent or the last part.

Derek

[itllclear 1]

Quote

***

I'm fairly certain that when they say, "all or part of that descent", they mean either the entire descent or the last part.

Derek

As a VERY active CFI and Aviation Safety Counselor for two FSDO's, I get to talk with a lot of the Ops Inspectors.

You can go on for hours debating the interpretation of an FAR. Often, it depends on which Ops Inspector you talk to. Different FSDO managers may have different interpretations of the same FAR.

Until the FAA's General Counsel issues a written interpretation, nothing is set.

I once saw this sign on the wall of a FSDO: "Arguing with an FAA Inspector is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After an hour you realize the pig likes it!"

If the pilot and jumpers are really concerned with rules, the best thing is to do this in a country which doesn't have any rules about this kind of stunt.

Blue Skies!

Harry

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[RogerRamjet 0]

Quote

Quote

Agreed; and their strut/trailing-link mains assemblies can absorb a very significant impact partly due to those higher speeds and corresponding higher sink rates. Picture a hard landing in an MD-80 with its 2 feet of shock absorber travel; now picture what that same sort of impact speed would do to your ribs.

A wonderful comparison. Except that an MD-80 series jet weighs sixty-one and a half thousand pouds empty. They have an average Maximum Landing Weight of 131 thousand pounds. So when you see one touching down, you can assume it weighs somwhere in between those two figures.

Your forward speed during descent to land an MD-80 series is something along the lines of 250 knots. Your descent rate is 17 to 6 miles per hour, flared out to 4.5 - 2.3 miles per hour at the runway threshold.

Your average man weighs 188lbs. He will never have a forward speed of 250knots... what are we saying? About 120 at best? What are the slowest *maintained* descent rates we've seen? 18-30 miles per hour-ish?

So admitedly, your man is coming down 4 times faster then the jet is at touchdown... So we can forget the "higher sink rates" presented in your comparison. More importantly, he is also weighing in well under five hundredths the weight of the jet... AND landing on a slope.

[Silly Comparison] Go ahead and use those ribs as shock absorbers. I'm thinking they almost scale my friend. Because those planes are some thirty feet tall. The shocks compress some 2 feet (as per you)... that's 6%... translate that to the human male and give him an average height (thusly 'thickness' from chest to back) of a foot. 6% of that is three quarters of an inch. I think I was compressed more than than that the last time I got a bear-hug. [End Silly Comparison]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the whole reason for using a slope to get the verticle speed of the jumper to a manageable level? The MD80 lands on a horizontal surface....

-----------------------
Roger "Ramjet" Clark
FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

[goose491 0]

Quote

Right. And sometimes when the pilot's not on the ball they hit at a vertical speed of 15 mph - which is when the landing gear justifies all the money they spent on it.

I guess (and this is not news) our daring wingsuit pilot will just have to keep on the ball then.

Quote

Ah, but deceleration doesn't care. Deceleration cares only about speed and distance to decelerate. And the thing that will tear your aorta away from your heart is deceleration.

"Ah" ?

Bill, the thing that will tear your aorta away from your heart is the FORCE.

f = ma

Which is equal to Mass times Acceleration

If I jump off a building with an ant... he'll make it... I won't.

That Jet has quite a bit more mass. And the acceleraion values are comparible. Look at my comarisons. You say if the pilot is not on the ball you could see a decent rate as great as 15mph. I was using 18mph as the best a wing suit pilot could expect to maintain. So the jets worse, and the human bodies best decent rates are comparible. However:

1)That Jet still weighs over five hundred times more than the man. (more mass)

2)The man is still landing on a slope, a privilege the Jet does not have. (vectored forces)

3)Two Feet of compression to the Jet still translates to only 0.75inches to the man. (silly comparison)

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[billvon 2,478]

>Bill, the thing that will tear your aorta away from your heart is the FORCE.
>f = ma

Correct. But since most people's aortas weigh about the same, the important part of that equation is A, which, given a certain speed and a certain distance to absorb it, will always be about the same.

>If I jump off a building with an ant... he'll make it... I won't.

That's cause he'll fall at about 5mph, and small things are inherently stronger than big things (the square/cubed law.)

>1)That Jet still weighs over five hundred times more than the man.
>(more mass)

Doesn't matter. Deceleration is the key issue, not mass.

>2)The man is still landing on a slope, a privilege the Jet does not have.
>(vectored forces)

Again, doesn't matter. It's the distance he has to decelerate in. If his approach speed to the surface is X just before contact, then X is the important number no matter what angle the surface is (even upside down.)

>3)Two Feet of compression to the Jet still translates to only 0.75inches to
>the man. (silly comparison)

That is the crux of the matter. How much deceleration distance is there? Let's take an example:

15mph, 3/4 of an inch compression on your chest before your ribs break. D=.5AT^2, so you decelerate in 5 milliseconds. Total G-force? 137 G's.

Perhaps you can compress your chest 3 inches before your ribs break. If that's the case, you will see 31 G's. That's a lot of stress on that vessel.

Now take an aircraft landing with 2 feet of suspension travel at the same speeds. 3.7 G's, which might well rattle the overhead compartments, but is less than the flight loads most small aircraft are designed to take.

Now, if our intrepid wingsuit lander figures out a way to have some significant shock-absorber travel distance, then the problem of impact trauma is greatly reduced.