pilotdave

I just don't buy that removing freefall from the first few jumps would lower the number of canopy collisions, low turns, and swoops gone bad. Static line and IAD instructors don't teach more about canopy flight in their FJCs than AFF instructors do. I have my IAD rating and my AFF rating. The IAD instructor course didn't teach any magical information that the AFF course was missing. The difference is instructor emphasis during pre-jump training and post-jump debriefs. There's no reason the AFF FJC couldn't put a greater emphasis on canopy flight. In fact, many instructors do put a bigger emphasis on canopy flight than freefall. I'd hardly call AFF to be freefall focused considering there are just as many canopy rides in 10 AFF jumps as their are in 10 static line jumps. I also don't think an FJC can really (effectively) teach more about canopy flight, whether its AFF or static line/IAD. A student that has never jumped before can only take in so much info. The FJC teaches the most basic survival skills. They don't, and shouldn't teach everything a student will learn over their next 200 jumps. Some have advocated for a seminar-type of canopy course being taught at some point before the A-license is earned. Not a bad idea... but I still don't think students can learn as effectively by listening to a whole wide variety of canopy control topics without putting them into practice, one at a time, before moving on to the next topic. The Flight-1 (aka Scott Miller) canopy course teaches a skill, then the students go out and put it into practice. Then they come back and learn the next skill. As I said before, we already have that arrangement built into the ISP. There are new canopy control topics added with each category, one at a time. The student has the opportunity to try them, one at a time. My DZ has a relatively small landing area, surrounded by obstacles, and a big plane. We've made a lot of effort to add a lot of discussion about "landing lanes" and maintaining separation from other canopies in the pattern. But students are students... You can teach, they can learn, but applying it in the air is a whole different ballgame. Unfortunately much of it just comes with experience. I do not think the first jump method has much to do with the current state of canopy flying. We don't have more canopy collisions now because static line was ditched years ago. It's because canopies are smaller and faster than ever before. Education has to be continuous to lower the accident rate... canopy education requirements for every license, not just the A. Dave

Robinson actually published a Safety Notice in 1983 regarding carrying external loads on the skids of R22s. http://robinsonheli.com/srvclib/rchsn13.pdf No idea if it applies to R44s. Dave

There's just not much downwash real close to the fuselage. I did 8 jumps from a bell jetranger a few weeks ago (and a handful of jumps from Allouette IIs and an R-44 in the past) and I've noticed the same thing on all of them. The amount of downwash you feel while standing on the skid is basically nothing. Check out the guy's hair in the attached pic... The ~20 kts of forward speed we were doing had a much bigger effect than any downwash. Even sticking an arm out on takeoff, you don't feel wind blowing down. The inboard portion of the rotor disk just doesn't create much lift. Dave

Well, it was phoenix fly's policy not to have their instructors fly with students. And I don't think you can have a reasonable debrief without having seen the person fly. So I'd say they couldn't provide much of a useful debrief. Not saying they didn't try. Dave

I didn't say one was better than the other or they were wrong to change. Just asking when. I definitely think this was a very good step. My first wingsuit jumps were in 2004 with a BMI that jumped with me. I was pretty surprised later on when friends paid to go up alone and not get any useful debrief. Dave

That's so adorable! Just like a real rating! Just curious... years ago birdman instructors jumped with "students" and phoenix fly instructors only taught on the ground and sent the student up for a solo. When did they change their mind? Dave

People get distracted on RW jumps just like they do on camera jumps. For example, freefall collisions caused by being so focused on going for a grip that you don't look around at all. Or breaking off low because you're so focused on getting that last point. These are some of the reasons newer jumpers should stick with smaller groups and break off higher. Jumping with big groups requires a lot of awareness that new jumpers tend not to have. We don't have recommended jump numbers for certain size groups... they're usually not needed because these things tend to work themselves out. On the other hand, anyone can go buy a camera helmet and jump it. Saw a guy with under 100 jumps that makes maybe 10 jumps a year landing from a solo with a camera on his head just the other day. There's no rule against it. And it is likely to add another layer of distractions. In the door, thinking about whether or not the camera is turned on instead of counting how long it's been since the previous group left the plane or checking the spot. Having a mal and instead of performing emergency procedures, taking the helmet off for no reason (it happened!), etc, etc, etc. I'd rather see one of these people jump solo if they're going to jump a camera. At least then the camera becomes the only distraction! But add more people, try to get that last point, AND try to get it on camera, and try not to turn your head too much because it makes for bad video... guess how that's gonna end up. Well, probably awesome video is how. Dave

I'm a little confused. You listed a bunch of canopy control topics that aren't included in the FJC and you're proposing additional training on those topics before the A-license, right? Those topics are all part of the ISP canopy training! I didn't see anything on your list that doesn't get covered by the time the student passes Category H. Seems to me that the solution you're proposing already exists. Are dropzones not following the ISP??? [gasp!] Dave

I own a reflex. Definitely a freefly friendly rig... if it all stays closed. The riser cover tuck tabs are tiny. Mine usually stay closed very well... but it depends a lot on the reserve repack and how the rigger distributes the bulk and how well the reserve fits in the container. I've had no trouble with the main flap opening... mine's very tight. I had friends with bigger reflexes that wouldn't stay closed though... usually riser covers. Reflexes became very popular in some areas in the late 90s when they had a 40% off sale. I bought mine used a couple weeks before Fliteline went out of business... and it just happened to be with them getting the harness resized. That sucked. If the price was right, it's a fine rig. But the price has to be right... the resale value will be extremely low. Dave

Thank goodness I didn't sign off the card yet. I'm failing you for the editing! Dave

Category F1 from last weekend. Dave

CRAZY TALK! You're just old fashioned. Haven't you been informed by a more modern jumper that times have changed?? Dave

I agree! If you have bridle wrapped around your camera and you can't get your helmet off quickly, you have huge problems! Your problems are so big that you should skip unbuckling and just go ahead and pull the cutaway handle that's surely installed on your helmet if you're jumping a camera! Because everybody that jumps a camera of any size knows damn well that the helmet's buckle probably isn't designed to release under the load the helmet is likely experiencing during an entanglement. That's what you meant, right? Dave

The person with 1000 jumps has had 500 more chances to get hurt than the person with 500 jumps. Statistically speaking, it's dangerous to skydive!

What altitudes are they set for? I have no problem with using audibles early if they are used as a backup, "you messed up, now pull" warning. But that's not how I see them being used. I see "listen for beep, then turn and track." Using an audible like that, especially with little experience, is a recipe for disaster. Dave

I think you're probably right, but: "I am advocating to put FF first when there NO wind shift and therefore drift and overlay of slowfallers onto fasfallers! " Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he means by wind shift. If he means zero wind, then I understand his point and still disagree with it. If he means no wind change, then kallend's model clearly shows otherwise. Dave

See the three attached images from kallend's program and help me understand your point. Parameters are constant wind of 20 kts from exit to opening (no shift). 5 second delay. The white line represents the first group to exit, yellow is the second group. 2 groups falling at the same speed. Slower group then faster group. Faster group then slower group. What am I not understanding about this? Would your graphs look different? Dave

Attitude is a much better predictor of risk than jump numbers. People with low jump numbers that follow recommendations of people with high jump numbers are at less risk than those that don't. A hypothetical person with 200 jumps jumping a small katana is at much higher risk than someone with 2000 jumps and the same canopy. But a person with 100 jumps on a Spectre 170 is probably at lower risk than either of them, depending a great deal on his or her attitude.\ The Australian accident hardly falls into the canopy accident category. Don't let it make you feel more comfortable with your own risk level that it can happen to someone with so much more experience. Canopy choice and flying style dictates canopy risk. This accident had nothing to do with those things. Dave

I think I'm starting to understand what you're saying, but I still don't agree with all of your points. As far as throw from the plane, we're generally in agreement. However, as unpredictable as the difference in throw from an RW group and a freefly group can be, it's likely that putting the slower fallers out first maximizes separation more often than not. Whether it's equivalent to a 3 second difference or a half second difference, I don't know. But putting freeflyers out first will put the groups closer together by the same amount, whatever it may be, except in less likely cases where the RW group gets more throw. Now as far as time between groups... you're saying that separation at deployment isn't affected by wind speed, as long as the wind speed is steady, right? You're taking into account that after the first group opens, they will continue to drift with the wind away from the second group, so separation at the second group's deployment time is independent of wind speed. Personally, I wouldn't rely on wind drift under canopy for horizontal separation. Canopies are flying in all directions right after opening. If we all jumped non-steerable rounds, it'd be a different story and I might agree with you. But now lets talk about order. You seem to advocate putting fast fallers out first to minimize canopy traffic. I'd like to see your graphics of the freefall trajectories and how exit order affects separation in freefall and at opening. Kallend's model clearly shows how, on an upwind jumprun, for any given exit separation and wind speed, putting out the fast fallers after the slow fallers maximizes separation. In fact, fast fallers out first tends to cause the slow falling group to cross paths with the fast falling group, risking a collision if the lower group has a premature deployment. Does your model look different? Dave

Over the ground, no. In relation to the plane you just jumped out of, yes, the throw will be the same. I don't personally believe you can put much faith in the difference in throw between belly and freeflyers. It just depends on too many factors, such as exit body position and, well, success. A perfect headdown exit into the relative wind will create more throw, but a back-to-the-wind spread out sitfly exit probably won't. I'd like to see NWPoul's graphics related to wind drift and exit separation to compare them to kallend's. I bet we could spot the difference in understanding real quick. Dave

Does that mean high or low? Dave

Ha. Honestly I don't remember where the rip was, but the lining isn't just in the arms. It ripped somewhere I was catching with some part of my body when I put it on. Dave

Had it on my previous suit, don't have it on my current suit. I don't notice any difference. The coolmax lining ripped on my old suit... kept getting worse and worse when I'd catch a foot on the rip. I don't personally think it's worth the cost. Dave

I personally disagree with this advice 100%. In fact, I try to talk new camera flyers out of adding ringsights to their helmets right away. Ringsights seem to be the biggest snag hazard on a camera helmet. Sure, snags aren't the only danger of jumping a camera, but they are a big factor. Read the incident reports... I don't remember an actual camera snag even though there are so many awful setups out there. But there have been fatalities caused by ringsight snags, and many more entanglements that didn't lead to fatalities. I recommend only adding a ringsight when you are sure you need one. I personally added mine when I was doing 4-way video and my team decided to go to nationals. The typical reason I hear recently is that people don't want to put a mark on their $100 sunglasses that they wear all day. A cutaway system is critical when a ringsight is being used as well. Many people believe they don't need one because they're using a gopro or other small camera. It's BS. Adding a ringsight to their current, non-cutaway-equipped helmet is just asking for trouble. Get the skill to fly a camera, then fly the camera and get used to it, then add the ringsight if you feel it's necessary. Dave

Believe it or not, some DZs actually enforce that rule. Some jumpers even believe it's a good idea! Ok actually I'll admit to breaking it myself. My first tandem video was my 99th camera jump. I was going to practice without a camera but the TI told me to wear it. I had over 800 jumps though. Lowering safety standards or breaking rules to help staff small DZs is a pretty poor excuse. Dave