gerrcoin

Yes. Instructor deploys a pilot chute for the student as he/she releases from the aircraft. No static line.

Just a point of note on buying a jumpsuit, something I didn't even realise until it was pointed out to me, avoid jumpsuits that are largely coloured the same as the cut-away pad on whatever rig you will be jumping ie. club student gear for the time being. The last thing you want is to have difficulty finding the pad in a hurry. It would be a shame to buy the suit and then not be able to wear it until you buy your own gear. The two common colours are red and yellow (there are a few customised ones out there).

Better efficiency and perofrmance by producing less drag (better L/D ratio), same as for skydivers. Turn rates would be better but not noticably. In any event sharp turns and tight spiraling are not desirable manoeuvres in powered and non-powered para-gliding as these cost you altitude and hence endurance.

Not so. I've seen some back-mounted reserve S/Ls with no AAD and my rigger told me that it's not manditory here. In the US it is however. That is not to say that individual DZs don't have a rule on this for their own gear. Note from original post

Not really. Our incidents are mainly due to low turns. In the UK AADs are mandatory on all student rigs with the exception of S/L (and maybe IAD - I'm not sure), but most DZs have a standing policy on their use for low license (A and B with low jumps). The unwritten rule was that if you were experienced enough to do CReW or birdman jumps then your safety was your own responsibility, but in that case you were probably already above B license anyway so it really makes no immediate difference. I think that the policy was aimed at enforcing the use of AADs at roaming DZs, which are beginning to increase in number. The only problem is telling a very experienced jumper who only has the A. Personally I don't any major issue with it but I'm just wondering if the USPA aren't watching how this works out. There is also a Low Turns Committee talking about a way to reduce injuries from these. I believe that low turns cause the majority of actual injuries. Overloading may be a cause or contributing factor of some injuries but it's a hard thing to pin down. As yet they have no definite proposals regarding this.

Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere. I had a look and couldn't see anything. Also I feel that this is more of a Gear and Rigging type of post than Safety and Training or General. Moderators please feel free to move it if you disagree. Found this posted on uk.rec.skydiving. From the minutes of the Safety and Training Committee meeting held on the 5th of February 2004 http://www.bpa.org.uk/forms/council/STC%20Minutes%205-2-04.doc Now I'm not starting a cypres debate (I for one am a fan, I've personally witnessed two cypress saves in my short time in the sport) but it seems that in the UK anyway it may become a moot point. Even a 5,000 jump A licence jumper will be required to have an AAD to jump.

Also it would be completely unnecessary. It the aircraft was dived the airflow would cause the prop to windmill (unless the engine was seized) and the pilot could restart from there, all being well enginewise.

How many Social Welfare people does it take to change a lightbulb? One, but it takes 3 of them a week to write a pamphlet entitled: "Coping with Darkness"

I've seen some video of exits of students. In some you can clearly see the jumper kicking his legs. Aparently it's a fairly common thing in the first couple of jumps. The jumper isn't conciously aware of doing it. So I guess that there may be some sense of falling but most people are not aware of it because of the adrenaline or excitment, and then adjust to ignore it as they get more used to jumping.IMO. However when jumping from an aircraft there is already the sensation of pressure on your chest (if arched) which may fool the brain into thinking that the body is being supported, and as there is no visual cue of ground rush the sensation of falling may easily be ignored. On BASE, balloon or heli drops that pressure is no longer there. It's a theory anyway.

Plus with the student Cypres you've got to watch what you're doing under canopy below 1500'. Dramatic spiralling could cause a reserve deployment.

A Cypres is not made to be used as a main parachute opening device, and can only be used with a reserve. Not a big deal, it doesnt say anywhere that it wasn't his reserve. Doh!, stupid brain. I'm gonna start killing it with alcohol again... that'll show it who's in charge around here.

Sounds like the reporter didn't have a clue about either aviation or skydiving and misunderstood terms mentioned to him/her eg. S/L for an automatic deployment 'safety mechanism'. I believe the reporter is referring to the toggles that he pulled down to flare on landing. and the "automatic deployment safety mechanism" was the cypress. Full quote:"A safety mechanism deployed his parachute at about 1,100 feet. He opened his eyes and watched the plane fall. He fiercely pulled on both parachute guide chords to slow down." So he was performing a practice flare at altitude, as per his training. No big thing, but the report makes it sound like a life saving split-second reaction. Just pointing out that the reporter is writing on an unfamiliar topic. Main was deployed by Cypres. My mistake. All dz pilots are very experienced (no DZO would hire otherwise). Most have a CPL (commericial pilots licence) - I'm not sure if this is required by the FAA under flying for reward. In any case he would have been sufficiently experienced to recover from a spin from 3,500'. I believe that the CPL is required, along with several hundred hours of flight time (not sure of exact amount). However, I know at many small DZs the pilots are doing the job in order to get flight time, in order to eventually get a better job. I would say that there are very few DZ pilots who actually make a living from it. For most it is definately an hour building exercise. NTSB prelim says he had a CPL. This indicates something like a minimum of 600 hrs. He would have had a full checkride in that particular a/c so the DZO would have been completely happy with his ability to operate it and deal with emergency proceedures. On top of that he would have been performing paradrop ops for a good while beforehand and would have been completely familiar with the handling of the a/c. There is no doubt as to the competancy of the pilot but the article doesn't play it like that. I'm glad we've had some input from folks who've jumped from this DZ and can attest that the training is top notch and safety is given a priority. Just shows that eye-witness reports can be flawed, that these 'human interest' pieces are overdramatized and selective in what facts they print, and that bitter people choose to remember a version of events that suits themselves. Remember that there are lawsuits pending.

Hmmm...It's been pointed out to me that FAA regs make it mandatory to have student Cypres on S/L and IAD rigs. I jump UK & Ireland (under JAA) and have not seen this before. Disregard this in my posts.

I stand corrected. I've never heard of them on S/L before and would have thought they were a bad idea for that anyway. But then again I've always seen the static lines hooked up before entering the a/c to prevent any nasty memory lapses by the JM (and premature first freefall surprises for the students). Anyway, we digress. I feel the JM did the right thing, given assumed circumstances, and the students felt abandoned to their fates because they claimed they weren't briefed on emergency exit proceedures and didn't know what to expect. Has anyone here trained at this club who can attest to the training there.

Aplolgies, on rereading the NTSB report confirms 6 people on board. I find that very unusual. The 182 was designed as a 4 seater but with the seats gone you could get 5. Space is not really the issue. Aircraft are limited in what weight they can carry and how that weight is distributed. That's why everyone has to be as far forward on the a/c as possible even though there may seem like a lot of space at the back. It's to do with the centre of gravity and directly effects the stability and handling of the a/c. The report doesn't not mention overloading so they may have been legal, but only just. It's possible that someone moving towards the tail at a critical moment could cause the a/c to pitch up and stall - especially since they would be flying slowly and with the power off for a climb out exit.

Clicky http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20030626X00959&key=1 For preliminary NTSB report. Can't really draw anything from this either.

Unlikely. Pilot and 4 jumpers. 5 pax would overload a 182. The article seems to have a fair ammount on inaccuracies in it. Stall warning Horn which beeps. You will hear it sometimes when taking off as the a/c is just above the stall. Will definately sound in a spin. Centrifugal forces threw him out. S/L rigs don't have an AAD because there is no chance of not deploying the main (that's what the static line is for) and they only increase the danger of reserve deployment before a cut away. His S/L would have been hooked up before entering the a/c and would have pulled the main. He was probably unconcious for a few seconds and doesn't remember the canopy opening. Sounds like the reporter didn't have a clue about either aviation or skydiving and misunderstood terms mentioned to him/her eg. S/L for an automatic deployment 'safety mechanism'. The article made the pilot sound like a relatively inexperienced one All dz pilots are very experienced (no DZO would hire otherwise). Most have a CPL (commericial pilots licence) - I'm not sure if this is required by the FAA under flying for reward. In any case he would have been sufficiently experienced to recover from a spin from 3,500'. A stall with enough altitude is not really a problem. All student pilots (

Ok let's not speculate here. I don't know of the incident but without detailed info, like maybe NTSB report, it's difficult to say anything constructive. But for my two cents... The c182 can carry 5 ie. pilot,JM and up to 3 (small) students. More than 1 student on a 182 implies that this was not AFF but either S/L or IAD, both of which go from 3,500' anyway. JM is always by the door to spot and help students in climbing onto strut. So it's just as well he got out first in order to avoid blocking the exit or slowing others. If the pilot hadn't already told them to bail by the time the a/c had entered a flat spin then you can be sure that it was a pretty sudden incident. But at the first sign of even relatively 'minor' trouble the pilot would have told them to exit anyway in order to have the best chance of saving the a/c. From the (not neccessarily accurate) news clipping, that sounds more like what happened. There is no good reason for a 182 to enter a flat spin (even with a dead engine) without something drastic occuring like locked controls or a part of the tail departing the aircraft. Are you sure that maybe one of the students didn't hit the tail on the way out considering that it would not be a standard exit. In any case the build up of g loading in a flat spin is tremendous and after a few turns would most likely pin everyone inside the a/c. The sooner you exit the better the chances you and everyone else has of surviving. Pilot usually goes last and has the least chance of making it. The descent rate would be something like 1,500 to 2,000 ft/min down, so that gives you just over 1 minute from 3,500'. Again speed is the key. So it sound like he did the correct thing. On the other hand, the JM had the responsibility for insuring that all jumpers on the lift (not just students) are aware of the emergency procedures for that type of aircraft. It's slightly disturbing that the students claim to have had no safety briefing for the a/c, especially on a first jump.

You'll only have 30 secs (deliberate pun). My advice is to get the forplay over with on the climb to alt.

If the canopy is spinning fast(very probable with a mal) then yes I'd have to agree with you there. But even with a reasonable turn rate it should be possible to hold on. Each set of risers support half your weight assuming that you have stopped accelerating. Even in a turn that generates 2g on your body, that's still just your body weight to hold onto (remember the other set is still attached and similarly loaded). Most people should be able to do that for the few seconds that it takes, especially with all that adrenaline that will be pumping through you.IMO. Maybe. But if the canopy is not too spread out and the cuts are made fairly close to the harness you should be able to get both in one swipe, assuming sufficient strength. However supporting your weight as I have mentioned would now mean that the risers are no longer under as much tension as before and would be alot harder to cut through cleanly.

I've never even had a cut away so as to cutting risers with a hook knife... this is mearly my thoughts on the matter. I imagine that if you take a firm grip with free hand on the risers above the cut, say on the links, then when the knife goes through on side you can still support your weight on that set of lines and the canopy will not tend to spin as much (your weight distribution will be a bit uneven so I would expect a bit of a turn). Just remember to let go after the second cut

When rolling the nose what you are really doing is closing the mouths of the cells and slowing the canopy inflation which,when combined with a correctly 'stowed'(?) slider will have a huge effect on the decceleration. This is most noticable with Zero P canopies where the air has no other method of getting into the cells. Rolling the tail will not have the same effect. However different methods of rolling the nose will have different effects. Rolling all the cells together will slow the opening initially but once they see the airflow they open together giving a greater shock. The method I use is to roll the outer cells on each side together towards the centre and hide the centre cell between them. Thus while the canopy is opening the centre cell will inflate first and the slider will begin to descend. The the rolls will work free as the canopy unfurls and the cells will inflate sequentally from the centre outwards towards the stabilisers. Personally I find that this makes for a reasonably gentle opening. Different canopies will behave in different ways the way I do it. The more rolls you put in and the tighter they are the longer the inflation takes. Too many and it snivels for longer. Try a few methods and regardless what the technical explainations are,stick with whatever works for you personally and for that particular canopy.

Generally I like to turn into the wind at 2k for about 5 to 10 sec just to gauge the ground speed of the canopy. I've been surprised a few times when turning into wind for the landing only to find myself going straight down (usually when this happens I'm over a shed or fence or trees, why never a nice empty field). Be aware that wind can change direction and strength on the DZ during the time taken on climb to alt and that both wind speed and direction can vary with altitude (uppers). Turning into wind as above will enable you to judge your true ground speed and drift. Position yourself as mentioned it the top post and if you need to lose alt use spirals (watch that student Cypres) or s turns - remember to keep clear of other jumpers. Close to the ground keep an eye on the wind sock and whatever visual cues there are - flags,trees, etc.

Most S/L progression courses last about 25 jumps. The static line is only used on about the first 7 or so, depending on competence, and thereafter it's freefall. To address a various comments in the thread: 1. Canopy control. The S/L student spends the first 7 jumps under canopy immediately(~3 seconds) after the exit. So their entire jump is mainly concentrated on canopy control whereas the AFF student has to concentrate on so much more during the freefall (keeping track of alt., maintain arch - stable, actually pulling the handle and knowing that it does something {not too many have the unshakable faith in AADs that some of the threads speak of}). The canopy ride after all that is a relief. For the S/L guy the canopy ride is the jump. He is worrying about his exit, the landing pattern and THE DREADED FLAIR (dum,dum,dum...). But keep in mind that S/L use those big Manta 288s, Navigator 260s or similar. Those things fly so slow (~15mph airspeed) that you quickly learn to judge the wind and your approach so that there really is no need for hard low turns. You realise that you are not going to make the field with altitude to spare and pick an alternate in plenty of time (sometimes). It's unusual for someone who has come through S/L progression at our DZ now to land off field but some experienced AFF guys get caught out every now and again with the uppers. Then on freefall you step down to 240s, or maybe 220s for the lighter guys (on club gear). But now you will have a student Cypres installed and hard turns below 1500' AGL are out anyway or you will find yourself with two canopies and one red face. The point being that on S/L you learn the hard way to be ahead of your canopy, give yourself options and not get caught downwind sitting over obsticles and going straight down. 2. Packing Most clubs encourage S/L students to learn to pack. At my DZ it's mandatory to get a rigger to certify you to pack club gear before clearance for first F/F and on the freefall stage you must pack the rig you jumped or pay someone to pack it for you. There is also some incentive in the form of jump credit for packing student rigs, so that 4 pack jobs equate to 1 lift to 5k. You better believe that most people in the club can pack. AFF sometimes choose not to learn and just pay but that is rare. Most buy their own rig shortly after the course and want to pack it themselves anyway. So what I'm saying is that most S/L students learn to pack early on and end up packing Manta288s or something equally difficult to get into the bag. OAT is 35 deg F but in the hanger packers are wearing T-shirts, sweaty work. They then pack 240s made from ZP and that takes practice I can tell you. Point is that by the time they get to packing a 200 or 180 ZP main, it's no big deal. 3. Spotting and low exits This has been well covered. The hop and pop is just like first F/F with a dive exit instead of poised (and without the sweaty palms). It's a big deal for AFF but no problem to the S/L progression guy. 4. Safety Probably both equal. 1st AFF will deal with all Mals, 1st S/L will only cover some. S/L learn that twists are nothing major whereas some AFF fear them. AFF learn stability quicker (obvious) and high speed openings. S/L makes sure that at least something is over the jumpers head should the worst occur and the progression makes sure that the jumper will pull, and correctly (with dummy handle) before they chuck him out - no strings attached. 5. Cost Not a huge difference really in the long term unless you are slow on progressing to the next level. In AFF you have to come up with the cash up front, S/L you can spread it out a bit. The bottom line: Most people who are serious about taking up the sport will opt for AFF because it gets them where the action is - freefall. Canopy ride can be fun but it's just the thing that allows you to jump more than once. A lot of people I know who started S/L courses have gotten fed up with the slow progression (S/L is way more weather - read wind - dependant than AFF) and have switched. I stuck with S/L. It's a question of personal preference really.

Depends a lot on the pack job. I tend to make my lines stows as neat as possible with no pleated lines in the bungees. I've found that the canopy comes out of the D bag more cleanly and I rarely get more than one twist (on a freefall rig), which usually sorts itself out as the slider comes down. Line twists should not be a problem unless coupled with some other malfunction. The major danger with them is when the jumper goes for the brakes before clearing the twists and ends up with one brake line hung up and in a fast spiral while trying to kick out the twists.