BMAC615

Okay. I’d like to redirect the conversation back to getting input from coaches, instructors and S&TAs and their perspectives regarding recommending a WL > 1 for A and B license jumpers, if they do it and why.

I appreciate your input and thought process. I would not encourage anyone to dock or down plane with a 9-cell or any canopy w/ vectran lines. I’d rather see people learn proximity and bump end cells with a 7-cell @ </=1:1 vs. a 9-cell semi-elliptical @ >1:1. You’ll bounce off a large 7-cell whereas a 9-cell will be more likely to wrap with aggressive contact. I’d be interested to see the glide ratio of a Spectre at 1:1 vs a Sabre at 1.4:1 in various wind conditions. Completely disagree about 1.4 tolerating mistakes and the weight difference of a 170 vs 210 canopy is about 5 lbs. and should not be a problem for a 200 lb man. I’m not saying anyone is being forced, but, there sure seems to be a lot of encouragement. Nothing wrong with high performance landings, I just think people should learn how to do them on a lower wing loading vs a high wing loading to give themselves the chance when the inevitable miscalculation happens. @sfzombie13 wrote in the other thread, “we need to start an awareness program and stop using this wing loading bullshit to get folks to downsize before they're ready. we need to make it desirable to keep larger canopies until the proper skills are learned to handle the smaller ones.” I think there’s a whole exciting world of canopy piloting that new jumpers aren’t being exposed to that would give them better canopy piloting skills before moving to small, high performance canopies. Thank you for your perspective. It is helpful for me as I formulate my own opinions.

1:1 & 1:2 is how a ratio is expressed in mathematical terms. 1:1 is the way we say 1lb per sq ft. Sorry, I mistyped, and meant 1.2:1

Rapidly as in moving beyond 1:1 WL within the first 20 jumps and beyond 1:2 before 50 jumps.

Thank you for your response. I think what I’d like to get a better understanding of is the philosophy that downsizing and increasing wing loading beyond 1:1 is necessary or inevitable - especially for someone with less than 100 jumps. I recognize having fun under canopy is part of the skydive, but, why do we have a culture of being able to rapidly downsize in order to land progressively smaller canopies?

Yeah, that’s a running tally, but, I’m looking for opinions from coaches, AFF-Is & S&TAs.

Skydive Cross Keys A License jumper on FB w/ 45 jumps weighing in at 200 lbs. + gear looking for a rig w/ a “PD 170.” Claims his instructors and coaches and S&TA have already had him on a 190 for the past 20 jumps and are guiding him to purchase a Pulse or Sabre 170. What are the coaches, instructors & S&TAs thoughts on this?

There are three different questions in there and I’ll list them as one would encounter them during their career: Instructor: Enthusiastic, competent, perceptive and reassuring. Coach: Must display the same characteristics as Instructor, but, must also make sure the jumps have a high likelihood of success. I have used Kinesthesia, The Art of Body Flight to great success with many, many students. It is essential new jumpers experience the success of layering skills on top of skills to gain confidence. Then, they have the skills to have successful jumps together. Examiner: Competent, neutral & honest. You need to feel your examiner will evaluate you fairly and give feedback to help you understand your level of competence.

Totally agree about Skydive 100! I just haven’t been able to find it on YouTube.

Congratulations! You have accomplished what few in the history of mankind have done. First, watch Kinesthesia, The Art of Body Flight and memorize it. The production is old, but, the techniques and coach dive sequence is still relevant. If you can get to a wind tunnel, I recommend getting a 10 minute block with a coach and performing the drills outlined in Dives 1-8. You can pick up with Dive 9 if you successfully master the skills in the tunnel. If you don’t have access to a wind tunnel, I recommend you perform jumps 2-4. Regardless of wind tunnel access, on your next skydive, you should perform an unlinked floating exit with your coach diving after you. Your goal is to maintain heading to watch the plane fly away and watch your coach fly to you as you transition to belly to earth on the relative wind “hill.” If successful in maintaining heading, on the next skydive, do the same exit, but, with a practice pull or two while your coach is diving toward you. This will give you experience in maintaining heading and confidence that you can pull stable on the hill regardless of altitude. You will now be ready for your hop and pops at lower altitudes. Good luck!

It comes down to this: You have the opportunity to design and jump a harness and container with a reserve, AAD & Main of your choosing. Why wouldn’t you choose reserve components that have optimal fit? My opinion is you should decide on an appropriate sized reserve and then consider which reserve of that size you want to buy based on price you are willing to pay. THEN, match the reserve container size with an optimal fit for that reserve, not the other way around. Then, decide on a main based on your desired flight characteristics. THEN choose a WL based on your desired flight performance and piloting skills. THEN choose the container based on those components.

Totally agree. It seems it’s a catch 22 in that if you bring it up to make a change to accommodate, it would draw attention to the matter that could result in a BSR going the other way.

But, there is the BSR of minimum altitude of container opening that would be a BSR violation, correct?

I recommend the largest sized reserve you can fit as a standard fit. I recommend against full fit reserve regardless of the main. This opinion may be unpopular.

Watch Kinesthesia, The Art of Body Flight by Norman Kent and Guy Manos. It gives a progression of skills necessary to acquire before jumping with another new jumper. As mentioned by @wmw999, you can acquire these skills in a wind tunnel faster than you can making individual skydives. Unlinked exits are particularly tricky and I recommend you exit as shown in the video, but, only AFTER going through the program with an experienced skydiver mentor/coach/instructor.

Ah, yes, I see what you are saying. USPA doesn’t care if you follow FAA regulations or not when outside the US, just that you follow the BSRs. There’s no BSR requiring a dual parachute harness when jumping from an aircraft outside the US, correct? If so, that makes sense. Still does not cover the minimum altitude opening violation when jumping from a heli in another country.

Now, that’s an interesting point. A BASE jump is not a skydiving operation. BASE specifically refers to jumps from Building, Antenna, Span and Earth. Like mentioned above, the FAA does not care about a BASE jump, but, does care about skydive operations from aircraft. When jumping from an aircraft it is not a BASE jump, but, a skydiving operation. USPA makes official recommendations for skydiving operations. In its governing role, USPA is officially recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as the representative of skydivers in the United States. USPA is an organization of skydivers, run by skydivers for skydivers, and it is your voice in skydiving. USPA keeps skydivers skydiving. SIM defines a “skydive” as the descent of a person to the surface from an aircraft in flight when he or she uses or intends to use a parachute during all or part of that descent. From the number of times they use the word skydive and the definition of a skydive, I’d say USPA BSRs do not pertain to BASE jumps, but, do pertain to skydiving operations performed by members when jumping from an aircraft, regardless of geography, excluding military operations.

I get that from reading USPA BSR 2-1 A.1. that states “ALL JUMPS ...” It does not state all jumps in the USA - it states ALL JUMPS.

I get the legality part - was hoping a Regional Director was on this thread and could provide clarification.

Since we’re on the topic of BASE from aircraft: Does USPA BSR 2-1 A.1. cover ALL jumps - even those made outside the US? The Basic Safety Requirements apply to all jumps except those made under military orders, or those training personnel under military orders, and those made because of in-flight emergencies. USPA members must comply with the Basic Safety Requirements, protecting the best interests of both the participants and the general public. As it reads, USPA members must comply with the BSRs regardless of geography or whether or not it is a USPA member DZ. Those USPA license and ratings holders may be in violation of the BSRs when jumping BASE rigs from aircraft, regardless of the legality of the location where the jump is being made. Anyone have an opinion on the matter?

Meh, I don’t see anything in the SIM against a B License jumper doing a Mr. Bill and then using said B License jumper as a paper weight or dropping them off on the back of a wingsuit. It seems as safe as a regular Mr. Bill and safer than doing CRW with a B-License holder - which is typically seen as perfectly acceptable. Have to admit, that video is pretty bad ass.

I’ll agree that canopy flying skills are very important. There are lots of good suggestions for that. I’ll add that you can get canopy and tracking experience on every jump as long as you plan ahead of time what you want to practice. Here is a link to Norman Kent and Guy Manos’ Kinesthesia, The Art of Body Flight. It is a series of drills you can do in free fall or in a wind tunnel. Memorize the concepts. You should have demonstrated the basic maneuvers during your journey to A license, but, I recommend you revisit those translations and movements in a wind tunnel (fall rate, forward/back, side to side and heading control/eye contact). Then, work your way through the progression with a coach or experienced skydiver and ultimately with another pup in three-way RW jumps. I went through the progression myself and have successfully coached many through the program. It may look outdated, but, the concepts and information is timeless and I haven’t found anything updated that does a better job. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BACK, SIT OR ANGLE/HEAD DOWN until you’ve at least been through the Kinesthesia program and have at least 100 jumps and have practiced back flying in the tunnel.

Yes. There is rumor of one coming to the US. Land and construction costs are $5M-$10m+ and the market for such a niche is undetermined.

This is odd as SunPath is known for having the best customer service in the industry. They are shut down for the holiday, though.

This is an interesting topic that I’ve been following for a long time - in 1987, at age 12, I converted my liquid fuel R/C airplane to electric and around that same time, I converted my gasoline lawn mower engine powered go cart to electric. I’m also an early adopter of the Tesla Model S and am on my 2nd one, so, I have some experience with electric vehicles. I’m very excited about the potential of Magnix’s electric 208B conversion revolutionizing the skydiving industry. With that in mind, I haven’t read this entire thread, but, I do know there are a few things to know about BE aircraft: Charging from 0-50% happens very quickly compared to 50-90% and the last 10% takes forever. There are ways to charge a very large amount of battery storage very, very quickly compared to the way EV cars are currently charge with one cable - by compartmentalizing the pack and charging with 2, 4 or 6 cables/power sources for example. So, you could charge to full over night, fly until the battery is down to 10%, shut down to charge to 50% and just fly between 10 and 50%. How long that would take will be difficult to determine. I also know fast charging the packs puts a lot of stress on them and accelerates degradation. You’ll typically lose about 3-5% capacity soon after delivery and will eventually get to 10-15% capacity loss. As battery technology advances, expect these numbers to improve, but, not by much. The main hurdle I see is that high power demand during climb to altitude is exponentially more kWh consuming than level flight. So, whatever numbers they are putting out for testing, they will be far, far worse. Right now, the eCaravan configuration is just putting batteries in the passenger area and that allows it to fly for 30 minutes of level flight - No where near required capacity for skydiving operations. Also, as the transition to BEV for terrestrial transportation unfolds, the demand for battery materials will be limited as the control of resources for battery production is already being locked up. I’m much more keen on the idea of hydrogen powered fuel cells for aviation and the obvious advantages behind it. ZeroAvia recently demonstrated full flight in a Piper M-Class and Airbus is working on several fuel cell designs. Magnix is also working with Universal Hydrogen on a Dash-8 conversion in a very exciting way! Hydrogen fuel cell conversions could be much more cost effective than conventional power plant replacement/overhaul. I could see a 208B using a compartmentalized liquid hydrogen storage tank in a belly storage configuration where the fuel would be loaded as cartridges with a forklift. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2020-09-18/conversion-plan-set-promote-early-switch-hydrogen-fuel Now, all the cost advantages of switching is dependent upon conventional aviation fuel costs remaining high. I believe as the transition to BEV for terrestrial transportation and a general transition away from petroleum based plastics to plant based plastics occurs, the cost of aviation fuel will drop as demand for petroleum based products drop. Aviation will be the last to transition to alternative fuels and the remaining supply of refined oil will become incredibly cheap as the long tail of supply plays out. Skydiving operations’ short flight requirements may turn out to be a perfect test bed for development of BEA (battery electric aviation) and FCA (fuel cell aviation) applications.