kcb203

I did exactly this progression over the last three years with a Javelin 3K. 188 ZPX for 68 jumps, then a Sabre2 170 for 280 jumps, then a Sabre2 150 for the last 40 jumps. I weigh 175 pounds.

 

 

Once you get your license, you'll be jumping at Orange anyway so might as well meet the instructors, coaches, and fellow Rotten Oranges while you're learning. I had the same question as you a year ago. I'm not sure if DC Skydiving Center has any fun jumpers.

skyjames

I thought the issue of skydiving as an Olympic sport was nixed mainly because it required powered aircraft and all Olympic sports had to be human powered only.

Don't recall where I read or heard this.

The kierin is a track cycling event that starts with a motorcycle leading a pack of cyclists around the track at increasing speed until it pulls off for the final sprint:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wIuVrUxeW0

hardhatpat

Quote

I'm guessing that the 408 will be more than 12,500 lbs based on its cargo load capacity. That means a type rating and two pilots.

That was my first thought, 6000lbs cargo capacity is hard to do under 12,500. It sounds more like an ATR replacement.

The 400 series Otter has a MTOW of 12,500 and an empty weight of 6881, for a capacity of 5619. Even the 50 year old 100 series Otter has a 5,716 capacity. I bet that with advances in materials over the last five decades, they can get a 6000 lb capacity in a 12,500 lb plane. Seems worth it to save on an extra pilot.

colossus

OMG, did you see the specs for the door? 87X69. I think the Otter's door is 56x50. So, that means then... wow. You can have a hell of a lot of people hanging out there (if it doesn't stall that is)!

It it possible that the door is too big and couldn't be operated with an open-jump door configuration? Perhaps the door has some structural features when closed and can't simply be removed and replaced with a slide-up jump door.

How does it navigate back to the DZ and land?

I'm closing in on 100 jumps and curious if there's any benefit to getting a coach rating when I'm eligible. I've got a regular M-F 8-5 job that pays more than enough to pay for skydiving and I'm also busy with my kids activities (coaching soccer, etc.) I see myself jumping every other weekend except in winter with the occasional boogie thrown in, so don't see myself jumping more than 100-200 times per year.

The main benefit I see is keeping up with safety protocols and also getting to know the new jumpers at the DZ. I wouldn't mind pitching in occasionally if the DZ is in a pinch, but when I jump, I'd rather be having fun rather than jumping to earn a few bucks or a free jump ticket.

My DZ has instituted a beginner program this year where people with a few hundred jumps are organizing those just off their A license. I'd love to pay it forward when I'm in that spot, but don't think a coach rating is needed for that.

Any thoughts?

I just got my A license at Orange earlier this year. Great, safety-focused training program, but not the cheapest.

During totality (if you're in the zone), you can photograph or look at the sun without a filter.

This website has a lot of info. http://www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/SEphoto.html

You have to be in complete totality to not use a filter--either for your eyes or your camera. 99% doesn't cut it.

Skydive Orange is having their Big O boogie this weekend. It's about 90 minutes northwest of Richmond. I think you have to register in advance and it's almost sold out.

On jump #6 yesterday, I started to get a leg cramp about 5 minutes before exit. The plane was so crowded I couldn't really extend my leg to relieve it. I was considering not jumping, but it resolved itself and I had an uneventful jump. Have you ever chosen not to jump (other than clouds rolling in or something else that affected the entire load)? Why?

evh

I use a ProTrack but is has the same option.

Downside: it may log a descending airplane as a jump.
For instance, this can happen due to sudden bad weather or low clouds.

So basically you end up with the same problem with your logbook. You will have to guess which of the two will happen more often.

Hadn't thought of the rapid descent. I had my first one last week. We got up to 14K and couldn't find a hole in the clouds so took a rapid dive to 5.5K for hop and pops. I was a little surprised how quickly we descended. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised because the plane usually beats me to the ground.

wan2doit

Should really help promote the sport to the masses and have it accepted as an Olympic venue.

If an appearance on America's Got Talent is the precursor to Olympic recognition, we're going to have a lot of totally messed up events in the next Olympics. Fire breathing, sword swallowing, tolerating massive blows to the testicles, etc.

I'm a new jumper with a Pilot 188 ZPX at 1.06 loading. I bought the canopy used with 450 jumps but new HMA lines. The first few jumps, there was a lot of slack at the top and a weak flare. I had the rigger take off 2". It's still weak--I'm basically at my hips before it levels off, and there's not much below that for the final punch. And I can't stall it in toggles--even after the shortening. I can stall it if I grab the top of the toggle but not my normal hand position in the bottom of the loop.

By default, the Viso II+ does not detect short freefalls and put them in the log. I put it in student mode the other day for a series of hop and pops, and it recorded them just fine. I don't really need the data, but it's helpful to keep the jump numbers in the device aligned with those in my paper logbook. I can't find a downside to leaving it in student mode. Am I missing something?

pchapman

"
(A longer final gives you more distance and time to make adjustments, if that is part of the plan. But if you aren't going to be allowed to change much in the flight path, then a shorter final helps, as a given error in angle will result in less of an error in the landing spot. )

That's an interesting thought. In some ways it seems like a final from 300' is harder than longer or shorter. If I had more time, I'd be able to look for the rising or sinking target and adjust accordingly without doing maneuvers too close to the ground. And if it was shorter, I could maybe time the turns better with less error due to being so far out. But 300', or about 15 seconds, doesn't leave much time to assess the rising or falling target, respond, and then have a good 8 seconds of full flight before flaring.

I don’t understand how beginning skydivers are supposed to obtain the accuracy needed for the 10 jumps within 33 feet or 10 meters for the B license without doing anything on final to extend or shorten the glide ratio.

I just completed my B license canopy course and while I can repeatedly get within 100 feet or so, increased accuracy eludes me and I’ll explain with some trigonometry. I understand the visual trick of looking at the vanishing point to see what rises and what falls. I’m also applying what I learned that I shouldn’t be trying to extend or shorten my approach once I’m on final. So once I make that last turn, my final landing point is essentially already established.

Let’s assume a no-wind day and a canopy with a glide ratio of 2.5:1. That means when I turn to final at 300 feet, I need to be 750 feet from the target. But if I’m at 320 feet instead of 300 when I make that turn, I’ll land 20 x 2.5 or 50 feet long. To hit within 25 feet, my vertical accuracy at the turn needs to be within 10 feet, which is far beyond the resolution of an analog altimeter and although a digital one displays within 10 feet, I don’t think it’s possible to assume it’s always consistent and respond exactly as the digits flip from 310 to 300.

But let’s assume that I can always be over the right spot at exactly the right altitude for my turn to final, but the winds have changed by as little as 1.5 mph. So instead of no wind, we now have a 1.5 mph headwind, which is 2.2 feet per second. Let’s assume my canopy has a an airspeed of 30 mph, or 44 fps. At a 2.5:1 glide ratio, that’s 17.6 fps descent rate. Starting from 300 feet, my final approach is 17 seconds (300/17.6=17). With a 1.5 mph headwind, my final is now 37.4 feet short (2.2 fps x 17 second final approach). So even if I’m perfectly consistent and correct an approach that was 37 feet long on the previous attempt exactly, a 1.5 mph change in wind blows the 33 foot accuracy requirement.

OK, now some will say I need to use my eyes rather than rely on turning exactly at 300 feet in the exact same spot every time. Basic trig tells us that 300’ AGL at 750’ from the target is an angle of 21.8 degrees. But if my visual protractor is off by even a single degree, a 22.8 degree angle from the same 300’ is 713’ horizontally instead of 750’, and I’m 37’ short of the target.

And I’ve read TK’s accuracy seminar:
http://www.skydivestlouisarea.com/instruction/TKHayes_AccuracySeminar_042007.pdf

I don’t have the author’s experience, but I have to say I can’t agree with his conclusion that using the visual up or down trick works on base before turning to final. I’ll see the same gradual change from the target moving down to stationary to moving up as I’m on my base leg regardless of whether my canopy has a glide ratio of 1:1 or 3:1. But once I turn to final, those differences in glide ratio dramatically affect how long the horizontal distance of my final approach will be. I didn’t explain this well, but the visual transition when moving at 90 degrees from the target has no relationship to the glide ratio when moving toward the target and the accompanying visual image.

I know I’m overthinking this, but it just seems to me that getting consistent tight accuracy without any control inputs on final approach is a total crapshoot. Using consistency, visual cues, and instruments can help, but I just don’t see how to nail it every time.

After every landing, I pace off the distance to the target. I don't see anyone else doing this. Does everyone just guess, probably giving themselves a huge benefit of the doubt in the process?

The question assumes you've already gotten basic housekeeping (traffic check, controlability check, slider stowed, etc.) and don't have a long spot or other situation requiring your attention. Just looking to see what people do in the couple thousand vertical feet between a regular deployment and landing.

The title of my thread isn't the best, but here's the basic question. I'm a 43 year old married guy with two kids. I'm halfway through AFF, and want to continue jumping one or two weekends a month for the foreseeable future. The closest DZ is 90 minutes away, and I coach my kids soccer teams and have other hobbies and obligations such that I can't focus my life around skydiving. I'm not a huge risk taker, and I don't see myself becoming a swooper, downsizing to a small canopy, base jumping, doing CReW formations, or basically doing anything that's not as safe as I can reasonably make it.

Did any of you start with a similar progression in mind, then abandon it along the way as the beginner apprehension faded away? Did your perceptive of risk change as your abilities changed?