Di0

My dad was a paratrooper so I wanted to do it since I was a child, for as long as I can remember. But my mom always opposed it (I feel) and never go to do it while I lived at home and it was my mom's money.
A friend of mine wanted to try a tandem for his birthday and knew I was interested so we went together. Two days later, realized I had a good job, I had the money to sustain it, I was more frustrated than usual, so I googled for a dropzone and picked up the phone. That's it. I haven't stopped since. Best decision of my life: my only regret, I started ~10 years later than I could have.

Hello Everybody!
New Coach here (ratings for less than a year or so) and this time of the year I've been really busy giving people the so called Refresher Courses. I wanted to share what I usually go through with a Refresher, hoping to get some feedback as in stuff I might be missing and/or overlooking. I've seen a couple of AFFIs at my DZ give refreshers last year and I based mines on those, I tried to balance the need to tackle the most important or dangerous aspects that are more easily forgotten with the fact that a refresher is not a FJC and shouldn't be meant as such: it shouldn't be actual training or teaching but more making sure you have everything you already knew ready and clear on top of your mind when you get back in the air. Needless to say, this is for short layoff, people that just recently went out of currency but doesn't work for re-training, long lay offs etc for which you need an AFFI.

I generally start by asking the guy how many jumps he has, and when was his last jump. Also, if he has been in an hanging harness recently.

Generally speaking the ground work goes like this:

SUMMARY:
- airplane emergencies and procedures
- 3 frefall priorities
- discussion about frefall emergencies
--- total scenarios
--- partial scenarios
--- two out scenarios
* if he hasn't done the hanging harness, I take him to the hanging harness at this point
- ask about decision altitudes, how to pick and off field landing and when.
- 3 landing priorities
- discussion of common landing obstacles
--- trees
--- water
--- buildings
--- power lines

Usual stuff follows: mock up the exit, walk the jump a couple of times, discuss current landing pattern, sit through the first gear check together, whether it's rental or not, and then it's on from there.
Then as for the jump, I usually let the guy pick the type of exit and if there is something he wants to work on, also depending on how many things we want to do depending on his experience, but generally speaking if I see controlled motions, stopping turns, if I don't feel he's about to take me out at any point, and I see a straight track into a stable, clean deployment at the right altitude, that's good enough for me regardless of the maneuvers we decided or were able to do.

Any input?
Beside the safety aspect: I am surprised about how many people forget the "priorities" even after short lay offs (I suspect mainly because they don't repeat them to themselves once they are done with the "classes") and are confused by them, but also I know these refreshers are expensive so I want to give back to people as much as I can...

Feedback? Important stuff I am missing? Things you wouldn't do in a refresher? Etc. etc.?

So far it's been pretty good and I am very happy with the refreshers I've done and how the jump went, very little work required on my side in the air except for one or two cases, and I am extremely grateful that the DZ lets me work so much with other jumpers so if there is anything I can improve on, I want to find out!! :) :)

Thank you guys!

Shoot BH and email, they reply super fast and I'm sure they'll work something for you: I ordered my aero straight from them so, beside the usual problems with custom, import fees, etc. etc., I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to ship it oversea.

Iago

***So now they are offering the alternative that if a jumper doesn't want to get fingerprinted then they can pay for a criminal background check.

I thought the boycott worked, guess not.

I thought the WVPD was already doing background checks.

Yes, probably, maybe, but now they thought they found a way to milk a bit more money from one of the very few mass events they have in WV.

srikanth_1980m

But after looking at your comments ,I am rethinking

Bullshit.
Don't let this bring you down.
If a few comments is all it took to make you rethink, well, good luck succeeding in one of the most humbling and challenging experiences of your life.
But also the best thing you could ever do.

Dough is spot on. Paradoxically, I think you would be able to jump much more with a good job to support one of the most expensive habits/sports I know.
You'll be able to afford good, new, nice gear, spend tons of money in training, tunnel, camps, travelling with friends, and most important in jumping your ass off 2-3 days a week. And trust me, it's a never ending pit.

After a good weekend of training/jumping, you'll be glad to have 2-3 days to "recover" at work.
It's counter-intuitive, but by having a job and spending every extra penny/minute you can in the sport, your will be able to gather up the experience you need to "get a job in skydiving" much faster than if you had no job to support the initial stages. And you won't be going "all in" trying to make a professional living out of sport, which is a bet like in any other sport. Very few people make it, most people stay at the level where they only play for fun, compete at open events, etc. But they still have the time of their lives doing so.

If you want to do it only because you like the generic sense of adventure though, then you have the same chance of succeeding at being a successful archaeologist without knowing anything about archaeology.

DougH

Good luck. If I was you I would try to get a placement in the US doing computer programming, and go to the DZ on the weekends.

This sounds a familiar story... I wonder where I've heard it before.

format

***I don't understand the question.

Getting unconscious/unable to deploy, saved by an AAD? I get it.
The rest - I don't get it.

Kill me for asking

Being disoriented under a spinning mal, failing to quickly locate the reserve handle, brain lock under stress, a mistake in estimating you altitude when initiating EPs, those are all situations where a backup device like an RLS/maard or other backup devices will save somebody's life.

Yeah, people make mistakes.

Maybe without the technology to "help" them, their mistakes would mean death, but I don't see why the world would be a better place if we can help it today. To me, choosing my gear as appropriate to my experience as possible, and as redundant as possible, is also part of my skydiving "skills", whatever that means.

aeronaut

***picture of canopy being tested

With a PC without a kill line ?
Do I see it right, are there two connections for the stearing line on the raer riser?

They're all prototypes so figures what they were testing... I would believe that the version for sale will be "classic" with respect to this.

*Me thinks* this might very well be my next "type" of canopy, probably not my next canopy, but my next step when I'll feel like graduating from the Saf's.

evan85

A coach I really like explains it this way:

Your hands and feet form 4 corners of a rectangle. Wherever your center of gravity is within that rectangle is the direction you want to go. So when you bring R hand and R leg in and push L hand an L leg out (like in your drawing), you're biasing your CoG on the right side of the rectangle, and you're going to go right.

Indeed, this explanation works for forward and backward motion just as well as sidesliding. (Turns are a slightly different story but if you think about it, it's a good way of teaching why centerpoint turns work the way they do.)

Only thing I'd change, Id' say center of pressure rather than center of gravity though. But yeah, generally speaking, that's the idea.

Scrumpot

***analog protractors are so old school anyway, only old farts use them, I have a digital laser one. Works like a charm, gives me audible alarms when it measures 45deg, and logs all my pre-jump separations.

Yeah, but you're not typically supposed to always be so separated, from your own group, like that!

I knooow. That's why I can't wait for L&B Protrackt 2, which is rumored to have a setting for that!

rehmwa

it would be so cool to see hundreds of GoPro videos of newbies using their new Neptune and L&B protractors. And them sticking their tongues out at the camera while measuring angles. And learning to swoop.

I believe that would soon start to cause bar fights on the plane with the T.I.s after them. People would bring iron pipes and monkey wrenches on the plane.

analog protractors are so old school anyway, only old farts use them, I have a digital laser one. Works like a charm, gives me audible alarms when it measures 45deg, and logs all my pre-jump separations.

Yes, good point.
No matter how you look at it, it's hard to find any rational basis for this 45 degrees rule. I like the word placebo to sum up that sometimes "we see what we want/expect to see".

Mh. Mh.

You're actually right.

Considering a vertical speed of ~120mph and an horizontal speed of ~80mph (plus or better: minus whatever the winds are), they should get away from 45 degrees as they cover more vertical distance than they do horizontally.
If, unrealistically, the plane has a relative horizontal speed bigger than their vertical speed, then they would approach and surpass 45 degrees.
At this point I guess it's more of an "optical illusion" than anything else. We think we see it at 45 degrees because we think that's what should happen and that's what 45 degrees look like. But in reality, that's dead wrong. Makes sense?
Oh well, as said, the 45 degrees thing has really no proven validity. One more reason to say it.
Next time I'll spot from an otter, I'll try to see what that angle is more carefully, but yes, I bet it's nowhere near 45 degs, that wouldn't make sense for normal conditions.


Actually, come think about it, the only point they might be at 45 degs is somewhere shortly after the hill, this thing makes no sense at all. LOL

I was mentioned the "45 degrees rule" a couple of times. Sadly, as an "alternative" to the proper "count X seconds and look" separation.
I honestly brushed it off as seemed too empiric, i.e. technically you could LEAVE the aircraft and reach 45 degrees from exit very quickly, anyway it doesn't make sense because 45 degrees is a perspective thing, you could have 45 degrees even when you are very close horizontally and vertically so, that alone doesn't work. It means you are as far horizontally as you are vertically, which only works AFTER waiting a certain number of seconds.
That's why I somewhat "recycled" the 45 degrees as a visual reference AFTER counting the X seconds: if after X seconds the group doesn't look well behind the AC but it's still well inside the quadrant (octant?) between the "nadir" and 45deg then I wait a little bit more to make sure they clear some extra airspace as it might mean the wind up top were stronger than expected, separation should have been longer or go figure where the group is drifting about.
In this case, 45 degress is more of an help to me to have a reference point to make sure the picture looks about right after giving the separation count. Separation count is what matters, but it's a way to not follow it blindly either.
You do, generally speaking, see the group "approach the 45 deg line" as the count goes on. Which is neat.

When, as a coach, I teach or mention or practice spotting, I make absolutely no reference of it though, the SIM teaches to calculate the exit order separation based on winds, group size, drift, etc. and then count, so I relay that message because it's what makes sense and starting to quote "magic numbers" that have no solid validity will only create dangerous confusion.
I will tell, however, that the whole point of counting is to ensure separation, so it's always good to not only count but also visually make sure the previous group is "moving away horizontally" and everything looks good as you are spotting.

LOL yeah, righ!
"chord" in Italian sounds like "corda" which means line and I couldn't remember the word "span" to save my life, I had been thinking for that word for days now, all I could come up with was "canopy width" which was very confusing. Thanks! :

mh. Wouldn't that also completely change the trim point and all other "characteristic" points of the canopy, i.e. sweet spot, neutral point, affect the neutral trim, glide ratio, pressure distribution, etc.

I think you could design a canopy "for small people with little experience" that is specifically meant to be smaller than normal but as docile as possible, maybe also playing of the "squareness" of it (i.e. making it more square than rectangular, so increasing the length of the X axis vs the Y axis), but it would need to be a design meant this way from the ground up, I don't think just sticking a longer set of lines on any canopy would be beneficial.

Maybe. At least that was the answer I gave to myself when I thought about it some time ago.

shift

Not everything scales the same when you go smaller, and things still happen faster. Think of a full size airplane flying, then a model of the same plane. Even with the same scale dimensions and weights, stuff happens a lot faster in the model. Full size plane takes 20+ seconds to take off, while the model takes 5... That's the best analogy I can provide.

It's a wrong analogy though, generally speaking RC models and full scale aircraft only have the look in common, and some very general ideas of control surfaces etc.
Weight distribution, power to weight ratio, internal structure, aerodynamic design etc are two completely different beasts and are not scaled.
It's like comparing an RC car with a real car because they look alike, they have completely different constructions and performances.

I like the drag explanation.

I also think it's a matter of aspect ratio, which - if I recall right - it's the ratio between the canopy width and the lines length. As canopy decrease in size, this number also increase and, if you try to visualize, shorter lines in proportion means that a smaller input (i.e. still giving 5 inches of brakes) will produce faster outputs, deeper rotations, etc. So the same small mistake with an input on a big canopy with low aspect ratio will be less noticeable than the same amount of error in a smaller canopy.

Also, as the relative size decreases, you get closer to the canopy and, you being the suspended weight, like a pendulum system your overall inertia decreases, which means, again, rotation becomes faster and the whole system is less stable (which means more performance in a turn but also harder and slower to naturally recover stability and straight flight out of it).
Try to visualize a weight suspended from the ceiling and a long rope, if you give it some impulse, the swing will be at a slow angular rate..
Now shorten the rope, for the same weight and the same impulse force, the swing, in terms of angular speed, will be much faster.

Not 100% sure, makes sense?

Time to step up our game.
We have the skills, we have the resources, we have more inmates per capita than them, we have Texas.
Only thing we lack is some real dedication.
There is no reason to be slacking like this.

On a serious note, setting our justice standards to be "better than Chinese" is setting the bar a tad low, isn't it?

roostnureye

The bar is called Nelson Blue. Super fun place. Was just there a couple months ago.

^^ THIS.
Super-recommended!

I use this in the winter:
http://www.amazon.com/Jaws-Quick-Antifog-Spray-1-Ounce/dp/B00BMSGU9Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418227230&sr=8-1&keywords=quickspit

and it works *alright*, it reduces fogging to an extent but fogging will always be a problem with FF helmets.
Forcing yourself to breath properly (inhaling from the nose, exhaling through the mouth) also helps.

Yes, that's what I thought so it was a "combination of factors", a little lower than you're used to, a little longer snivel, possible brake fire, probably line twist, etc. etc.
Shit happens, you did the right thing! :)


I'm also a small guy, I have been jumping at 1.2 on a 149 for some time now (only very recently switched to 129s).
Brake fire aren't *that* bad, I can usually control them almost instantly with the opposite riser, but either way, bad or not, when you run out of altitude it's time to say see you later to that canopy.
Food for thoughts, acting on the risers not by just pulling them apart, but by putting them at the same level (something people often forget) to cancel a possible offset, and then pulling the opposite side riser as in an opposite turn might stop a spin and slow the canopy descent rate. Nothing you should play with below your decision altitude, but something worth a shot if you're still above it. Or a worthwhile fight if, God forbid, it's your reserve to be f****** up.

I hear you on being a small guy, I am also 145-150 (without gear) depending on the size of the breakfast vs the crap I took in the morning. :D

You did good!
Congratulations!

Out of curiosity, you say you spun up "pretty fast". Your rigger says it might have been a brake fire. What canopy/WL do you fly? Brake fires are normally nothing more than half brake turns, so on "normal' canopies they aren't *that* fast. I know that because on my 7 years old risers (I finally replaced them last weekend lol) I had brake fires on 7 out of 10 times on average. And generally the spin is comparable to a slow turn (but I was also on a very flat canopy, so also the input given by the offset induced by the remaining brake was probably minimal).
Maybe you had a combination of two things: line twist induced a brake fire etc. etc. That's why kicking wasn't enough or wasn't effective. But that's just a guess as good/bad as any.

Either way, you hit your decision altitude and you decided.
If your decision altitude is 2000ft though and you regularly have 1000ft snivels (?), you might want to consider bringing your deployment altitude up a notch. You're not leaving yourself too much time to deal with these issues. If I knew my snivels are regularly 1000ft, I wouldn't dump at 1200 from my decision altitude, but that's just me.
If 1000ft was just an exceptionally long snivel on top of other problems you had, well, shuuuucks. That's why we have a reserve. :)

skow

EDIT: seems like NZ are not far behind

http://vimeo.com/111820591

AHAHAHAH! Love that the video they are watching when they get mad is yesterday's PD "R&D, all that lies ahead one".
The only thing I love more than kiwi's humor is their kiwi canopies. :D

gowlerk

I like it. The need for hand tacking it means that someone will do it wrong before long. But it will not interfere with normal deployment. Unless someone tacks down the bridle itself. I'm not going to pretend that I'm even near smart enough to figure out if this can go wrong somehow, but I really like the concept. It seems to follow the idea of "first, do no harm" better than any other system.

The one rigging mistake I can think of, is: if instead of routing the bridle on top of it and from outside to outside again (the way the video shows), you route it either below and outside, or inside and then outside, then if you straight to reserve you have created a reserve container lock because the bridle will be clipped in the trap loop. I am not even sure this is possible or that this would happen, not to mention a very unlikely rigging mistake, I am not a rigger or that experienced for what's worth, but it's the first thing I thought when wondering "what could possibly go wrong".
The only other thing I thought is: no system to cutaway the opposite side riser? Or they simply didn't show it?
Also, they don't show if there is still a way to pop the reserve pin independently of the MARD working or not, like the skyhook which is in the worst case scenario, always at least an RSL.
So, I am very very very interested in this system and I really want to find out more! :)
I love the idea of no-interference and I was really happy to finally see a video that gave us an idea on how they did it!

Quagmirian

Just in case you haven't already read it:

yeah, but the hell does PD know about canopies anyway...