skytribe

Its a shame there product line is seriously dated compared to the others manufacturers. Just like Flight Concepts as a manufacturer. I remember when PD, Precision and Glidepath/FCI were the 3 dominant manufacturers. Oh how things change but both Precision and FCI appeared to not have updated there designs much at all in many years.

For a while were they not using precision.aero as their domain.

So he’s arrogant and complacent enough to disregard his training because of a skyhook which have been known to disconnect (nothing is perfect). Or do UPT now advocate not pulling the reserve because of SKYHOOK. Not pulling the reserve handle is incorrect emergency procedures, saying anything else is just trying to justify not doing the correct thing.

The website has been down for ages. Are they still in business ? If they are they will struggle to get any orders without a web site and a range of canopies that is rather old hat compared to the offerings of NZA, PD, Icarus and Aerodyne.

An RSL will activate the reserve after you have fallen the length of the RSL from the departing riser. So the RSL will always beat you to the activation. However, the RSL/Skyhook is a backup device to correct emergency procedures of pulling the reserve handle after cutting away. That's the way it is taught and that's the way it should be carried out. Incorrect emergency procedures I believe last year were a big percentage of the US fatality statistics. Two tandems failed to execute the proper procedures.

Some places put the camera on the student's hand and get a mix of good and bad video. It's argued that it's no less safe than a TI with a hand cam and may even be an improvement over a possible entanglement around the TI's arm which makes him/her unable to deploy the reserve. As far as it being allowed the USPA is very aware of it. Edit: I personally would be happy to have the student wearing the handcam rather than me so I can focus on flying and safety. Do they still charge tandems for video ? - ie. you can wear a camera but your still paying us for the privilege. You can wear it and get crappy video or let us wear it and get a much better quality result. I can go into McDonalds and have a burger but bring my own bun. It doesnt stop them charging me full price for the burger (without the bun) that they sell me. Video is a service that the DZ offer.

I'm ok with him not pulling the handle. I'm not even a little ok with the fact that he did not have his hand on it. And he needs line twist training as well. He is probably a rookie, he definitely is poorly trained. Videos of under performing TIs on YouTube. One more good reason to not let the passenger hold their own camera! So your ok with tandem instructors not executing the correct procedures. ie. Not pulling the reserve handle. Simply take a look at a recent SB from a non-tandem gear manufacturer about some RSL shackles - they can become disconnected. If he's missing the obvious and not pulling the reserve handle on a cutaway - what else is he deviating from.

I'm assuming that the lines are spectra. Yes, brake lines do shrink over time as they get heated up by the friction of the slider coming down. I've had people tell me they need the brake lines shortened and I've questioned it - they tell me how much and its usually on the big change side. I end up saying we can do less and adjust in it small steps. Often after a bit of toing and froing they end up with lines pretty close to where they were original. Now shortening the lines wouldn't necessarily change the cat eye position but over time the lines will shrink a little. I wouldn't think this was enough to cause stalling on opening but potentially it could. This shrinkage is going to be occurring above the cat eye so over time the brakes will be getting a little shorter. I would tend to recheck the brake line measurements against the manufacturer's specs. As you said this only started to occur after the last shorten, try to lengthen the brake lines two inches to see if it's still occurring. If it is then you can always contact PD and send it back to them for evaluation. PS: Everyone seems to think they have short arms which most of the time translates into not finishing the flair. This is more common for females to request shorten brake lines.

I believe PD stopped making them with packing tabs by default - you can still request they put them on if you want to side pack.

If the stuff is being delivered there - how is the person picking them up. Are they Porch Pirates and awaiting the delivery and picking up before resident does or having them redirected somewhere else ?

I wasn't saying an incorrect routing was acceptable - more that both methods of routing are acceptable. Partially extracting or simply following the bridle from the pilot chute to the pin to ensure that it was free is a good idea. The other thing to note here is - who was supervising the packer. If they were'nt being supervised by a rigger then take a look at that decision - if they were being supervised then I'd question how much direct supervision was actually being done.

Cath I think its noble that your trying to cover info on a gear check. You may want to run any stuff you create with a couple of experienced instructors/riggers before posting and make adjustments. The original method is still in the current version of the UPT manual. They now have multiple methods of routing - ie. out the bottom, out the top. I'm not getting into a pissing match but both methods are acceptable. IMHO I don't feel the original method is unsafe - It has millions of jumps done on it without any problems - the change as a result of a few bridle piercing incidents resulted in the change but most manufacturers determined the original and alternate methods as acceptable. As with all things in this sport - read the manual, understand how it works and if in doubt ask, people that know the answer (riggers, instructors, manufacturers). If the manufacturer came out and said DO NOT pack with the original method, this is the only acceptable method then my opinion would obviously be different.

IMHO the alternate routing is OK for a few type of jumpers who pack a certain way. For many years/decades we didn't experience any pin piercing the bridle with the original routing. How many thousands if not millions of jumps had been put on the gear. Then all of a sudden we see a few incidents and people think we need to change everything. My understanding is the gear manufacturers put the alternate in to appease those calling for change in routing. Investigating a little further it became apparent that often people were stowing any excess slack in the bridle above the pin. This little bit of excess which would be under the main flap allowed the pin to easily rotate without direct contact with the bridle. By stowing this excess away making it nice and snug. The pin is always in contact with the bridle and hence when it rotates during deployment it can potentially pierce the bridle. Ever wonder what that little bit of velcro on older rigs was for. It is my understanding that the small piece of velcro on the container and on the bridle resulted in a little slack in the bridle if matted together - and hence we didnt see it in the past. Remove the velcro on modern rigs (as velcro is bad) and people will stow any excess away and we start seeing the new issue. I will also say that wingsuiters may have a reason to change due to the angle of the bridle when deploying as they are moving forwards at time of deployment and hence the direction of pull is slightly different.

Was this also behind the reason that you could fire Vigil's by putting in the trunk of your car turned on and slamming the trunk shut. Numerous reports of that happening.

They all do this and have different arming and activation altitudes depending upon the models. Read the manual's Vigil (http://www.vigil.aero/wp-content/uploads/Vigil-2.0.3-Users-Manual-June2015.pdf) section 3.1 Cypres https://www.sskinc.com/images/Res/files/User_Guide/CYPRES_2_users_guide_English_01-2012.pdf Page 31.

Perhaps Aerodyne should get all their documentation in sync.

When I questioned UPT about lack of staging loop supplied on a brand new rig. (they specifically did not like it being called a hesitator loop). They sent a reply that it was only recommended on tandem and larger canopy containers and hence thats why it was included. For UPT, aerodyne - the use of this elastic loop is optional. ( https://www.flyaerodyne.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/IconManual052017_online.pdf ) Page 25.

And you do realize the wind at different altitudes can be different? So a 360 turn to determine the wind direction can be irrelevant and completely incorrect as you descend further towards the ground. The likelihood of this uncontrolled unconscious descent very low. The Idea of a GPS guided reserve also means activation is very low and the idea of a 360 on a small reserve to determine wind direction makes the idea even less palatable.

And once it is going downwind it will have a tendency to continue downwind unless there is some imbalance in force - ie brake input or weight shift causing it to continue to turn or wind shear relative to the movement of the canopy through the air mass. When it is turning to go downwind the force of the wind acting upon the canopy may coming from the front left and as the canopy comes past 90 degrees then comes from the rear left side of the canopy continuing the turn until it is coming from directly behind. There may be some inertia which causes the canopy to travel past this point. The force will be then coming from the rear right causing that inertia to slow to a stop and change the direction to weathercock back towards the downwind. Eventually these to and fro movements will become less and less and ultimately results in a steady downwind. In all likelihood there is some imbalance - whether suspended weight or difference in the brake lines and I would say that on a strong wind day the effect is much more noticeable than on a low wind day - as the force of the wind vs the relative movement of the canopy is larger. Vector arithmetic of the wind vs canopy. Experiment: Go up on a really windy day, hop and pop at the higher altitude with the stronger winds. Point it into the wind, don't touch the controls and try to avoid putting harness inputs in and over the time see if you're still flying into the wind. I would put money on it that your not. On a no/low wind day you may find that it would take a lot longer to happen or wouldn't happen at all due to lack of turning force of the wind. The canopy vector + zero vector (or small vector due to little/no wind) = canopy vector or requires a longer time to notice the effect. The winds at different levels would be different so the downwind direction would change as your descending. In the canoe example, it will be much more noticeable in a strong current than a slow stream but it will eventually happen.

Either way - patent is well and truly expired now.

And that is based upon what....

These two sentences do not go together. -Mark When you have to keep the formation pointing towards a fixed point on the ground then keeping on heading was important. Turning 90 degrees made judging impossible and resulted in busts. When using air to air judging the camera person is following the formation when the formation turns they stay behind the formation - so the into wind / down wind run in became less important. The camera was always the same relative to the formation (ie. behind).

Hmm, I'm not quite getting his ideas. Within a fairly homogeneous air mass such as up high doing CRW, the canopy shouldn't know whether it is going up or downwind. A lot of CRW is done with someone trying to keep a formation on heading. Then the biggest factor is that going downwind, you can see the DZ you are heading towards. When facing upwind you are typically upwind of the DZ and staring off at the horizon with no easy reference..... The fact that someone is actively trying to keep something on a heading is true - but if when the formation turns off heading it and control input is taken out it naturally has a tendancy to want to go downwind. Then if your already going downwind then that means the no input state then ends up with a tendancy to want to go downwind. If your going into wind and the formation is turning off heading and wants to continue turning to line of least resistance then it has a natural tendancy to want to turn 100 degrees. Try thinking of a canoe facing upstream and if you turn slightly off heading then the canoe will want to turn a go downstream. If youre already going downstream and turn off slightly it will have a tendency to continue to go downstream and will not turn and face upstream stream.

I recall the conversation with an instructor who just happened to have done a doctorate on Ram Air aerodynamics about a similar issue to do with into wind or downwind jump runs for CRW. Doing downwind run jumpruns towards the then ground to air camera resulted in the easier ability to keep the formation on heading then when doing into wind jump runs. In simplistic terms, he stated that the canopy would have a tendency to follow the line of least resistance. In the case of downwind if you tend to turn off the following wind would result in a force which would tend to push back toward that line of least resistance which is downwind. Think to keep a canoe facing straight in a river going with or against the flow. In the case of doing an into wind jump run the slight turn off heading would result in the winds continuing to push towards that line of least resistance - ie. downwind at which point the momentum of a turn may carry it past but would then tend to then result in it wanting to feather into the back towards downwind. I know that sounds simplistic and this was assuming no constant user inputs, ie. if you fire a brake it will continue turning in that direction. But it did explain why we found it much easier to keep formations on heading going downwind than into wind. When judging switched to air to air it became a moot point.

I believe the patent was a US patent only and had 20 year life or something close to that and therefore is now expired. The US patent resulted in copies in UK, France and a couple of other places that allowed manufacturers to build rigs without paying RWS any royalty.