sundevil777

I didn't realize this was such an old thread.

On 6/6/2021 at 10:53 AM, EagleMan said:

Any ideas what this could have been?

Solar flare activity causing localized gravity storms.

Gotta have something for when you funnel a formation.

4 hours ago, hhh said:

Skyer is and has been my first and only digital altimeter.

I'm very interested in the Skylife Vega/Sirius/Orion.  I understand you haven't used them, but do you know of their reputation?

1 minute ago, sfzombie13 said:

there is no decision whether to cutaway or not.

A person must realize their situation and apply the right action.  There is evaluating and responding going on.  Many will see that as synonymous with a decision. 

Decades worth of evidence supports the ambiguity of the terms.  An outsider would conclude new terms would likely work better than a new effort to train better.  



 

57 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

you make a decision to cutaway

It has been asserted there is obviously no decision made at the hard deck.  Perhaps that is the source of the argument.

If any of us tried to put on paper a hard deck algorithm, there would be diamond shaped decision boxes, correct?  You could call them if-then boxes if you want, but a person must do the evaluation of the situation and make the correct thing happen as must be done at decision altitude.

21 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

that is a result of poor training, not poor terms.

How shall we fix the poor training, by telling the instructors to do it better?  

How shall we prevent people from giving their decision altitude when asked what their hard deck is? 

The misunderstanding has existed for as long as the terms have been used.  The 3rd post especially shows how this has persisted.  The use of these terms is a significant part of the misunderstanding.



 

5 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

i just do not see how anyone can mess this up.  they are completely different terms, and they mean completely different things, uspa definition notwithstanding.

If asked "what is your hard deck?" the reply of many will be their decision altitude.  If asked for both, the distinction is forced. 

22 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

the two phrases are pretty  clear to me

Quite right, it isn't obvious when things are ambiguous, which makes it so dangerous.

I think the use of the term "decision" in one of the terms, but not the other, because the hard deck doesn't involve a decision or whatever...is awful.  Only a committee of overeducated experts could get such a lousy result designing the terminology which ought to be used.  

First unit I received made no sound, same as another friend.  They were very nice and promptly sent a second unit which worked.  Certainly got the impression they replace many. My friend took his apart and found a solder connection of a wire to the speaker was bad.

36 minutes ago, chuckakers said:

Good points. The decision altitude definition does reference emergencies and since it says "must" it can be implied that above that altitude a jumper still has other options like continuing to work on a mal, get out of a wrap, etc.

As for the hard deck definition, I think that can be applied to any altitude-specific scenario like bailing out of an aircraft, chopping a mal, etc.

This could be better stated. I will pass this along to S&T for a possible rewrite.

Thanks for the input. Much appreciated.

The definitions should be dropped, new terms used, not revised.  The OP showed us very clearly how the confusion has defied efforts at clarification.  Let us learn the lesson and stop trying.  

9 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

if you're looking for a cheap audible, get an aon2 brilliant pebbles.  they don't do talking altitudes though.  but for that price you can get two, one in each ear and turn them up.  get them to beep every 1000 or 500 ft to do a countdown.  then make them start beeping like crazy at pull altitude.  i think it has 20 alarms you can set and 8 or 10 different tones.

I already have one.  I understand they are inexpensive and poorly made - bad wiring.  Of course I'm looking for a cheap audible.  The full feature VOG does nothing of much value extra, in my opinion.  Multiple beeps do not a VOG make.  Seemed reasonable to ask whether the basic version is actually being delivered.  

9 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

yeah, that's as clear as mud.  does it apply to cut away? 

The use of the terminology hard deck and decision altitude should be avoided. So many convinced of what it obviously should mean but it isn't so obvious.

6 hours ago, MickPatch said:

I have a VOG, it is a great audible, worth every penny

For those interested in the cheaper version, has anyone actually known someone to have it?  All of them seem to be the full feature unit, which is surprising.  Are any of the cheaper versions out there?

Even with the best oxygen system, are pilots allowed to fly at those altitudes for only a short time?  Doesn't this seem like an obvious question? 

3 hours ago, riggerrob said:

no one was publishing 3D charts.

Extra "axis" in effect can be put on a chart similar to the attached.  A graph could show speed on x-axis, altitude on the y axis, and still have curves on the graph representing different manifold pressures which are the other "axis".

11 hours ago, IanHarrop said:

I am looking to add glue to the joints. Over the four jumps so far with them I had two of them separate while packing.

Never needed glue.  Did you try inserting the turned-back end into the other end?  Doesn't need to be inserted as far as your pics show you doing.  A bit bigger in dia than yours, but the overlapped section is shorter and fits at the base of the larkshead well.  

For those resistant to using alternatives to rubber bands...have y'all ever had a had to replace a rubber band at a center locking stow location?  Did it break while the lines were getting pulled free (no harm if it breaks then) or did it break long before line stretch?  When they d-bag is accelerated upwards, when you absolutely do not want a locking stow to break, the Newton's 2nd law force from the hunk of nylon inside is focused on breaking that/those critical center locking stows. where all that force gets concentrated.  A substantial portion of nasty hard openings may be due to this.

The critical middle locking stows are the only location where I've used tube stows for 30 or so years. It isn't practical to double stow so the bite goes relatively deep.  Regular bands do so much better for the outer 2 locking stows on my 4 grommet d-bag and the non-locking stows.  The tandem mfgs obviously do not trust regular or even the super wide/thick tandem rubber bands alone for critical locking stows.  The risk for the tandems is more severe because of the much heavier mass inside the d-bag, but the point still remains for smaller canopies.

5 hours ago, fcajump said:

Often it leads to a 1/4 turn toward the direction the nose was laid down on the floor.

The nose does not have to be oriented toward the side as originally laid down.  The nose can be prepared just as when pro-packing, and it can be oriented to the floor as a pro-pack is. 

1 hour ago, sfzombie13 said:

i made a dozen last night.  took almost an hour and a half to figure out how to make the first one, then 11 in half an hour.  the trick is to use the hemos to hold the outside edge of the tube that isn't folded back and press it inside the hole and hold it while wrapping it with the fold.  if you don't let them open enough it starts to pull the tube out.  two sets of hemos would be easier than one and the needle nosed pliers i was using.  i hope to get down and change them out and test them to see if they work today.

It seems like my instructions are the opposite of the word document.  I put the rolled up side into the other.  The result is a larger diameter at the junction, which gets placed at the base of the lark's head knot when installed.  It is a bit bulky, but doesn't bother me. No need for glue when there is so little tension when installed.  

10 hours ago, riggerrob said:

spray tired canopies with porosity-reducing sealants.

I sprayed/soaked a "F-111" PD210 with Scotchgard.  It planed out much better for several years. Doesn't have to be zero porosity for it to be a significant improvement.

The use of ammonia as a carrier of hydrogen fuel for fuel cells is really interesting.  The old ways of making ammonia might get a radical upgrade, along with new ways of getting fuel cells to use it more efficiently. 

Customer service innovation, increasing their appeal on the used market.  

 

On 9/7/2011 at 6:05 AM, irishrigger said:

had a look at the website but cant fing anyting about container sizeing.

https://skydivewings.com//wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Wings-Container-Canopy-Sizing.pdf

A link to it was in their FAQ

1 hour ago, wsinsel said:

I'm not so sure it's this generation of canopy that had this problem. Ok, the Sabre II is the hard opener.

Never had a Sabre, but the original Sabre had the reputation for hard openings, with many experimenting with slider pockets and such.  The Sabre II had a reputation for not opening on heading, but did not have the hard opening reputation of the original.  I have never heard of the association to the steering lines.

Student canopies typically fly relatively flat at full glide compared to what you now have.  Don't be surprised by the comparatively steep approach and more responsive flare.  Talk to instructors about how to deal with the more intimidating glide angle/speed, that extra flare power and managing the pop-ups that are likely.