relyon

My post was off the top of my head and I stand corrected about the proportionality. All sorts of higher order adjustments exist for the cases being discussed, but those are even more irrelevant and all but trivially adjusted for. This is skydiving, not pure physics. I still maintain just because a formula isn't known doesn't mean there isn't one. Bob

Just because they don't know the formula doesn't mean there isn't one, because there is. Ignoring compressibility since fall rate is nowhere near the speed of sound in nearly ever case, terminal velocity is proportional to weight provided everything else remains unchanged. The real problem is determining what that velocity is in the first place, adjusting for it, and keeping everything else the same. Trial and error is still the fastest for what's being done, but it's not the only way. Those with out-the-door weights of around 100 lbs should increment/decrement in small amounts (say 1 lb at a time), around 200 lbs twice as much, and so on. Bob

While your point is well taken, particularly in the context given, consider cases said "historical perspective" was a detriment. The Wright brothers spent over a year trying to build on that perspective before figuring out that their predecessors were wrong. Even then, Lilientahl's death was the reason their first A/C had canards; the Flyer and others were highly unstable in pitch as a result. It took the Bleriot XI to change their minds. I digress ... That said, treating lines has never made any sense to me. Bob

Not really. It's similar to being at a red light at a busy intersection and not going until it's green, except eveything is thee dimensional. The answer is to exit the A/C so that you end up at or below deployment altitude by the time you get there. Much better is to avoid the area altogether. Better to misjudge and land out than be in the wrong place at the wrong time. For example, the rule I've used at Perris is to stay west of Goetz Rd until 2000' or less. So, tell manifest and preferably the pilot as well that you're doing a H&P, stay away from where freefallers are dropping/deploying until you're below their opening altitude, and watch where you are. Don't forget to enjoy the view. Bob

[thread creep] Ah, yes. Bottled water in Europe. Spa reg (with gas, carbonated); Spa blue (without gas, non-carbonated). I like the simplicity, unlike the 5000+ different kinds of bottled water we have to choose from here. Alchohol? There I there I don't mind having a few more choices. Hi Caren! Say hello to Tom for me. Bob [more thread creep] PS - I think when I learn another language, it will be Dutch. I feel ignorant not knowing the local language where I visit. Finnish? Even some of the Finns I've spoke with said English was easier. [/more thread creep] [/thread creep]

You risk a mid-air collision if you're directly above the place where it's reasonably expected a load of freefallers will be dropped at an altitude higher than the lowest persons canopy is fully open. Example: You're happily flying at 2300' directly below freefall group(s). One of them doesn't see you and is planning to open at 2000'. What could happen next is an excercise for the reader ... Bob

voltage and BerryBoy: Downwind runs. Get out far upwind and head back. You still need some sort of plan, but it's a little easier to figure out. It used to be done all the time during the days of ground to air CRW competition video; it made for a better camera angle. You always have to be ready for landing out regardless. Make the decision to land out up high when you still have options to choose rather than down low where you're forced into what you have. Another major point is don't let yourself get straight up over the LZ higher than 2000' (my personal altitude is 1500'). You're playing with potentially becoming a statistic if you do. Bob

Yes it would cost something, and yes, I'd pay a dollar per jump to fund it. YMMV Exactly why I suggested no rating or approval be given, as well as available (website downloadable) but not magazine published reports. Reports contain just the facts; nothing more. Similar to USPA or NTSB incident reports. They don't say an incident was bad or good, just that one occurred and perhaps suggestions as to how to prevent it from happening again. You just can't please some people, even if you're trying to prevent their potential injury or fatality from occuring. I had a pissed off offshore platform operater tell me any pilot worth their salt could fly in the conditions that prevailed. I couldn't see the lights of a platform 1.55nm away under a 300' indefinite ceiling and all of my operations are strictly day VFR per the ops manual. I told him the keys were in the machine and took a nap. I digress ... Did you read my original reply? No grades or approval ratings ("gold stars") of any kind. Just the facts by a qualified individual merely reporting (preferably anonymously) what they see and/or using publicly available credible information sources. Depends on who you ask. Pilots, mechanics, and executives will give you differing answers. I wholeheartedly think yes. Then again, I had an incident 65nm offshore once and was damned glad the helicopter had up to date maintenance. It could have been much worse if it hadn't. Bob

I'm curious: Are those cells cross ported? The PD response leads me to think they're not. Bob

I voted for an inspection program whether or not the GM program is kept. I think it does. Of course things can and have gone wrong at even the best DZs. We all should know skydiving isn't safe. Rhetorical questions: Do you go to board certified doctors for surgery or let your friend do it for $20? Think of the money you'd save! Do you choose to drive the most pothole riddled road to your destination or the one that was recently paved given the choice? Accidents can and do happen on either. I guessing you know what I mean. Your comment regarding stone cold new DZO notwithstanding in the least, I still believe it would be a big step in the right direction. The biggest problem I forsee with such a program is it staying the proper size and not pissing off DZOs. I suggest it stay as a simple report (eg. items that anyone can observe), inspections done by an instructionally rated member (higher than coach), have no report card type of grade (ie. just the facts), and (most importantly) be available but not otherwise published in a magazine (USPA website?). Bob

[thread creep disclaimer] Yes, indeed it is. My sincere congratulations to all! I soooo wanted to be on that load , but at least I got to see it up close and personal. Bob PS - I made the supreme mistake of confusing a Dutch woman as being of German nationality ... in Arnhem of all places! Fortunately, she didn't take offense to my mistake; she just kindly but firmly pointed it out to me. Sometimes one learns lifes lessons the hard way ... [/thread creep disclaimer]

That's wonderful! Such a beautiful DZ staffed and frequented by some of the most friendly folks I've come across in this sport. If only Linda and I could be there for it ... Bob PS - Hi Saskia! Say hello for me to Henny, Kees, John, Erik ("Ear"), and the CF couple whose names I've unfortunately forgotten!

Of course, PD will call it what ever they choose, but somehow I didn't take Chris' calling out "The next Storm jump is in ten minutes" on the armory PA real well. I'm not sure why ... Any PD folks lurking? Rusty ... Kolla ... PM me. Perhaps I'll remember why ... Bob

Though I've cut out and kept a few pages/photos from articles of events I attended and given some as reading material to doctor's offices, for the most part I trash them. My usual comment to my wife is "oh, another content-free issue of Parachutist", just before I toss it. Bob

I'm guessing their response to an FAA inspector would have been different ... Bob

Turbine helicopters have dealt with this problem from day one with completely mechanical fuel controllers. IIRC, it's called "scheduled decelerration" in the Bell 206 manuals. If they didn't, slamming the throttle from full to flight idle would result in an instant flameout, catastrophic loss of power, and possibly an after-fire. That rarely, if ever, occurs if the fuel controller is properly setup in my experience. Are turbodiesels that different? Bob PS - I just love being the pilot who gets to verify flight integrity of a recently installed fuel controller ...

Let me know when you think you'll stop by and I'll try to be there too. Bob

I've seen many variations on "death straps" as their often referred to. I personally haven't jumped them myself and prefer not due to the malfuction modes, but I know many who [mostly successfully] have. Perhaps Wendy (faulknerwm) will chime in, since she's used them on a few occasions. While there are several variations, it is important to have passive release mechanisms at both ends of any given attachment. If for any reason anyone lets go of the attachment device, it releases. A normal three ring is not sufficient as pulling the cable is an active motion. I know a guy who was one of four building a quad by side. The formation built to three with no problems. When four docked, his canopy wrapped around an active release mechanism. A massive wrap ensued in which no one could release and all four crash landed hard. Bob

They don't really want an answer, so don't even try. I prefer to ignore that sort of thing by saying "Whatever ..." at most (if at all). If pushed, I ask them if they can think of something more original to ask. Bob

The point is well taken and works most of the time. However, doing that and determining where and when to do that are two different things. I've screwed myself more than once because I waited too long. Again, it's better to decide to land out safely and have to walk than it is to be forced into it when there's no other options because of waiting too long. Bob

Great topic and list. I've had more than my share of out landings (ie. landing anywhere unplanned for) and can definitely relate. You mentioned looking down now and again. I remember one jump in particular where the proverbial bad spot dropped the whole load a mile off course. I recognized it in freefall around 6000' feet, turned, track, and dumped. Of 23 on the load, I was the only one to make it back. Here's a few more things that come to mind: Be aware that landing out is more likely to happen on certain kinds jumps, notably when exiting far from the DZ (CRW, high altitude H&Ps, demos, etc). Be more concerned about getting to the ground safely than landing back to the dropzone. Choose a good landing site early rather than being forced to choose a poor one when there's no altitude or options left. Not all surfaces are as smooth or hard as they may appear (particularly tall grass). Assume linear features are man made and are usually surrounded by fences and/or wires. Avoid these. Don't make radical low turns. These apply to any jumper, any canopy, and any wingloading. Many people are either not used to out landings or think it won't happen to them. I'm not talking about landing a hundred yards away in the desert at some place like Perris. I'm referring to everything from city streets, baseball fields, backyards, parking lots, and forests. At some locations, if you don't land on the DZ or pretty close to it, chances are you'll be coming down in trees, clearcuts, or a rushing river bed (see here). Bob

Yup, some myths die hard ... but I'll try and help. I've never bought the line dump arguments. For the last 900 or so jumps, I haven't used any bag at all, preferring a tail pocket instead. Before that it was freestow bag. I also demoed a popular ZP 7-cell freefall canopy once for couple jumps (to terminal, no less). I didn't have a bag, so I used a single "sacrificial" rubber band for the locking stow and freepacked (*) the main. For each method there is a single locking stow and they've all open smoothly. Bob * - highly discouraged because of the malfunction possibilities. If you don't know what freepacking is, don't ask.

My apologies for the thread drift, but the replies so far make me wonder how many F-111 7-cell rides people have. I can think of at least 5 people, each of whom has more than 30 jumps on their reserve. One has over 40. It's the exact same canopy in every case but one, and that one has 20 or so jumps. Several manufacturers and/or models too. A couple things are consistent: 1) low wingloading (< 1.2) and 2) no injuries during use or landing (many were off field). As always, YMMV. Bob

There's lots of information posted on Tempo's, both good and not so good (hint - search). I have nothing but good things to say about mine (a 170 DOM 96). See here and here, among others. Bob

Really? You must read a different Parachutist than I do. I love to see CRW but rarely do. I was quite pleased to see a 15-way CRW formation on the Sep '07 cover, but there's only one other picture inside and a short piece about CF at the nationals. Bob