NWPoul

If you will practice enough in headdown on the the earth (for example walking on hands) so you don't need a lot of sterss/force to keep youself in this position - you'd find, that being upsidedown on the earth (for a some amount of time) don't lead your blood to rush to your head too;) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

To a point where you begin to stall... Atmo is in the middle of the range, tracking is on the edge. I mean not bodyposition but resulting glide If you get more flat glide - it's shows that you have better L/D ratio Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

In traking you well produce Lift More flat tracking - more lift Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

It seems, tha your RSL was unplugged, not just unstowed (if it meant the same by unstowing - than sorry, english isn't my natural languege) and start flapping around at ~0:29 sec Don't shure if it can be related to hard opening but it defenetly not good any way, be careful;) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

1. Ok 2. They won't make you better pilot but they just fly better (not only faster/futher but better in general including flying back from long spot) at such WL Regarding mastering of skills - IMO Should be mastered not only on non-x but also at more docile WL Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

Of course but I like to use an airspeed and delta n wind rather than ground speed as we are calculating separation between jumpers in air not on earth so there is no earth antil we land:) Yep, Agree! But it's when we are start estimate the DTime (not calculate the distanse) it's wise to use the simlyfied method that work - just GSpeed on GPS if we have one)) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

I would propose: D ~ (Airspeed-WindDelta)*DTime where WindDelta = upper wind speed - lower wind speed (wind shear:) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

Yep, my english is far from perfect, sorry:) I meant both of them, of course we are interesting of separation at deployment time Yep Sorry, don't understood what here saying Actually I did always understand it:) I meant the effect of windshear (sorry if this term was confusing, my english is not so good) in my first post. I wanted to distinguish the groung speed/upper wind from wind shear as factor reducing the separation (at dep time) which was initially got from airspeed. But I do agree, that I should have been more carefull with my statement: "Why it is wise to increase the interval between exits in case of High upper wind (low ground speed)? Because you can!" As there almost always is some windshear when upper wind is strong and therefore some reducing of separation Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

Well..."What you are advocating is the exact opposite of reality"3 what exactly of my points are exact opposite of reality? Am I desagree, that it wise to uncrease the inteval when wind is strong (ground speed is low)? No Am I desagree that taking ground speed as more simple value for estimating exit interval not (despite of my first post in this thread when I say that actually nor ground speed gives you a separation nor it's directly affected it, and this is true)? No I am advocating exactly for better anderstanding of "the physics of the issue" even if it in most cases does'nt lead to any changes in actaual action:) Once Again my points: 1. You get initial separation only from airspeed and interval, no mater what ground speed is (how strong the wind is) 2. Wind as itself does not affect the separation on deployment altitude either - only wind shear does (don't count the intentional flying to DZ into jumprun right after deployment here) 3. Ground speed don't shown you waht wind shear is (so it dont show you reduction of distance you probably get on Deployment) it's only indicate that there probably is wind shear and yes usually the stronger upper wind (low Ground speed)- the more wind shear and it's effect you get 4 So the base minimum interval should be taken based of an airspeed of plane at jump run (disagree here with Billvon) and this base minimum value can be written on the dor cos it's not depend on wind AND THAN if you have some upper wind you can ADD some sec for it 5 Yes? I Agree that another - more simple method - yes just take the ground speed as value to calculate the interval cose in 0 wind condition ground speed will be = airspeed so the minimum interval will be the same) Always ready to learn something:) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

Really:)? Could you be so kind to explain the reality? Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

UPS, my bad - I wanted to type Should not I sad "minimum interval" I meant that at any upper wind you should only add some interval to the minimum, which taken from the airspeed (=initial interval on exit) Yes the wind shear can cause the redusing of resulting distance (as well as proper exit order and postdeployment behavour can increase distance in case of wind shear) and simple calculation based on ground speed can be more useful that other complicated (based on true physics of affetct of wind on separation) method:) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

No I talking about horisontal separation ("vertical separation doesn't work") Groundspeed is 0 Yep, at the very moment of your opening, but at this time he'll be taken away (relatively to ground spot, relatively to you he'll just stay at the same distance which you get at exit +/- distance he intentiannaly travel after opening using his canopy) Again in just strong wind (without wind share) it's just no difference in separation between groups at dep altitude in strong wind or no wind wind condition Wind shear - agree, make difference... and the bigger shear than bigger difference and agree the stronger upper wind tha usually stronger the wind shear. But wind shear not simple function of upper wing (and ground speed) as well as his affect on the separation) From other hand - who will be bother to do complecated calculation?) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

Actually I Did mention the wind shear as part of the problem:) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

I don't understand this. What exactly? You need some horisontal separation on deployment time between you and prev/next jumpers At this moment you and others are in Air not on the ground Separation prvided by traveling of the plane through the air in certain amount of time between jumper's exits Lets there be wind uphigh with speed 150 ft per sec and plane airspeed will be 150 fps too, so the plane actually doesn't move relative to the earth (groundspeed = 0) but if you exit 10 sec after prev. jumper despite 0 ground distance covered, the distance between you and prev jumper will be ~1500 feet, same as in no wind conditions but if your ground speed = 0 you can take as much time on exit as you want, without flying away from spot while with zero wind you'l get 1500 feet away with every 10 sec of waiting Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

What gives the ground speed/distance for safety during deployment in air?? Ground speed does not directly affect separation (only if prev jumper start fly to DZ (usually = follow jump run) just after deployment which bad habbit anyway). Cover the ground with clouds layer, lower than deployment altitude - and there no wind)) Why it is wise to increase the interval between exits in case of High upper wind (low ground speed)? Because you can! You wish from one hand to get as more separation as possible (= more interval) but from the other hand you wish than both first and last jumpers from same run can land in LZ (plane didn't cover so much ground distance). So when ground speed is low you can afford more time and more separation for the same price (ground distance). So there should be reducing of time bw groups when Groundspeed is high (minimum interval should be taken according to AIRspeed), only incresing can be mde when ground speed lover P/S Another issue is wind shifting and drift wich usually gets stronger with higher upperwind, but it's can increase separation as well as decrease it, depending on exit order and other factors) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

May be just quick pre (or after) boarding conversation between the jumpers on the load require less and do more? Here at most DZ we have socalled LSO (Line of start observation) when all the load get standing in front of LO accordingly to their jump plans, get usefull info about jumprun, wind, landingpattern and get to know who will perform a HP landing etc... But on DZ which doesn't have LSO we used to say (during the walk to plane) if we want to make HP landing, ask who will to do HP else and establish an order between us (at the same time the other load knows who they should afraid:) ) P.S. And strong IMHO: frist man set landing direction - just sucks Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

Yes you do... http://www.l-and-b.dk/help_center/manuals It's manual for Optima One... L&B still don't give us manual for Optima TWO =/ (manual for One is mostly correspond to Two but O-II have some difference) 2TopicStarter - Us previuos posts said - don't bother with turning your optima OFF, I never off mine (even for a winter layout) and the battery still good (~2 seasons):) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

FYI - this is a common misconception It's a weird misconception Ok, One's can start skydiving before going to school or just giving no sh** to the Physics but there should be some common sence... If you feel the wind into your face how it's possible of thought of "Big Body for wind pushing in back" to came in mind?? Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

Would be interesting to see the results of such experiment for porosity degradation:) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

For Viso - agreed For Optima there is a more significant changes in 2 version of device so i'd like to get the manual) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

"Video was removed by user" =/ Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

If there is 3 sec drift (according to Mr Kallend) than you can easily give just 3 sec coz it's doesn't affect the spotting and actually not so much Regarding 12 sec for wind - if you show the groung which virtually doesn't move under the plane it should be quite easy to let any corresponding delay as soon as everyone aunderstand the positive of delay and saw that delay does not fly them far avay from the spot)... But again do you bealive than strong upper wind (low ground speed) lead to less separation between the groгps at deployment (i.e. air distance) or you just CAN wait longer on exit providing the more separation yet still be on a good spot? Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

No by wind shift I mean a difference between upper and lower wind. Lets came to agreement at basic things first) My first point: The constant wind (no wind shift) = zero wind from separation point os view. So if you "understand his point" for zero wind you take it (yet you can disagree with it) at any constant wind. Now regarding uploaded pics from Kallend's program: 1 Without differense between upper and lower wind the drift between the groups determine only by initial throw 2 I am surprized of amount of initial throw for FF, According to graph it takes 16-18 sec for FF to arrest the Horisontal speed from the plane, while for RW it's about 10 sec. Did you ever notice such defferense and time? From my limited expiriense in FF we start to work fully horizontally (i.e. Take grips, go around each other) after about 7 seconds from exits (I know that does not mean, that we completely stop H. Speed but at least at this moment we exposure even much surface to Horisontal component of Relative Wind than RW so should start to arrest rest of H. Speed not less than RW) 3 Mr. Kallend himself told us that he estimate that drift between RW and FF (caused by initial throw) is equal ~3 sec of exit delay, but in the graph the RW exited after 5 sec overtake FF for a good another 5 sec =/ If it true – than it's ultimate argument to put RW first, but I newer ever saw that RW exited 5 second later overtake the FF if they both dont tracking throgh the sky Yes the horisontal separation the ultimate for safety in regard to deployment collision When I wish more Vertical I refer mostly for the landind crowding One or two early or later deployment does not impact the landing order, but when all RW and FF part of load are mixed – it's not very nice) Once again this conserns came not from theory but from practice, when we read the DZ and was inspired by modern true order and start to implement it at any wind conditions and start to fight with "Oldschool guys" and try ti convinice the DZO that Fast Fallers should go after Slofallers while "common sence" and prev expirience say opposite... We have succed and new order was implemented almost at every load, than we started noticed, than it's can lead to discomfort at landig pattern... than we noticed, that when there no significant wind shif the "drift" of RW vs FF is also not so significant and quite minor relative to the main factors; exit delay and anintentional tracking. So at now if there is no strong upper wind we put the FF first (but if there big RW group, say 10+ jumpers they go first any way) and give the delay between last FF and first RW and usually we don't see the overlap shown in graphs... Also when staying on the ground and whatch the jumprun, exits and falling there are also not such drift observed Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

Or jusr add this 3 second to exit delay between FF and RW as far it;s constant (does not affected by the wind) and proveding the same H separation and spotting add 3 second of time and some altitude separation to you favor:) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

Let's assume that this "3 sec throw" is a fact so as far as it's undependend from wind - it's constant so you can simple add this 3 second to exit delay between RW and FF without affecting their spotting = same horisontal separation plus more time and vertical separation:) First it is good when canopies don't fly all deretion after opening but fly perpendicular to the jump run (more easily for relatively low members in FF group than big RW btw:) ) But lets canopy flying all diretion - this will be the same for any order and any wind and all flying canopies still continue flying in moving air mass so there is no wind for them:) No! I am advocating to put FF first when there NO wind shift and therefore drift and overlay of slowfallers onto fasfallers! If there is significant wind shift and therefore drift - than we use the RW first order Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?