• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by dpreguy

  1. PC Chapman Oops. My error. The original one I saw at PIA (George G showed it to me on the Plexus rig) had a yellow Lolon cable. I guess Wings has improved it. My mistake. I haven't packed a Wings with the Boost. In that case, (metal pin) it would be one the best too.
  2. All three MARD inventions where the D bag is pulled out/off/up by the cutaway main by means of a (Described by some as a "fold over") operate on the same principles. OPINION: I think that, from what I've seen they could be rated as possibly good, better and best. As for myself, I wouldn't rely on a bungee. that makes the Firebird proposed invention in the video (once again, in my opinion) "possibly good". But not for me as it relies on a bungee's strength. It is good in theory, but have my doubts how it would perform under varying conditions as set forth by other posters. The Boost = better, as it relies on a lolon cable Best = the Peregrine ACE, as it relies on a long metal pin, with a Dyneema (Cypres loop material) loop. In my opinion, the absolute best of the "fold over" design MARD devices.
  3. I am constantly perplexed and irritated by the seemingly ubiquitous trust persons put in a single carabiner. Bungee jumping etc. As former 20 + year rock climber (back then) I had seen every carabiner made. And yes, in climbing we only used one while leading and when time was a factor. I have popped a rivet in a steel one when doing a fast stop on a rappel, Seen a rope pop out of one, and so forth. But everyone. Everyone back then knew that when time and circumstances permit that you avoided putting a life at risk with a single carabiner. We all knew to use two and oppose the gates. Now, when I go to climbing stores I see carabiners that are very expensive. I think the assumption is that if it is expensive and rated in high thousands of pounds or kilos, the user just thinks he's covered. And, I'm sure that in almost every case, that is true. Almost every case. But, as the previous poster pointed out, things can be damaged etc. Nothing is more secure than to use TWO good biners and opposing the gates. So simple. In a hang/para glider there is no reason to rely on just one. It is just a bad practice. Almost isn't good enough. And the use of two as I have described has been known for 40 or 50 or more years.
  4. N Lopez I have already rented a room. Two separate beds. I don't know how to PM, so please PM me. If you do commit to this, please anticipate paying me in cash only -USD. Be great to split the cost in half.
  5. Is the 30 foot Strong, a bias constructed canopy?
  6. Rocksky - Thanks. I ordered XXL no problem. They are already shipped.
  7. Dang, I always relied on Para Gear to order more of them. Esp since I need double XL gloves. Always was able to get them ordered. I'm sad they are gone. Are they out of business?
  8. Chest mounted demo containers have always been a bad idea. The chest containers cover up your view of your handles. Councilman is correct. Don't trust plastic snaps or zippers. If a demo container can't be taken to terminal, it is an inherently bad design. Strapping on a piece of demo gear always has the risk of killing you. If a demo gizmo can't survive terminal velocity, you increase the risk.
  9. "It's just a copy"...Yeah, why study; just look at the smart guy's test in the seat next to yours... steal his answers.
  10. So Yuri. You'd be a happy customer buying a counterfeit copy of someone's invention. And you see nothing wrong with copying someone else's invention and using for yourself. Wow!
  11. The term "Reverse Engineering" is wordsmithing to cover what it really is: Stealing. If one's intellect and design skills are so poor that they can't make a product of their own...well, I guess they just steal from the guy who did. And to make stolen copies and sell them?...shame on you.
  12. Hookenswoop is correct. The installation must be noted on the data card, the rig re-sealed. Although it can be done that way, it is a very bad practice. This new rigger is now the certifying rigger for this assembly and assumes all responsibilities for it. The new rigger is now responsible for everything inside that reserve pack … and any other defects on/in the rig, because when the new rigger records the info and puts his seal on it, it was that new rigger's responsibility to thoroughly inspect the entire assembly. Including the main parachute if it is still attached. Say the main parachute is installed backwards or a riser is twisted or the main is not airworthy... or there is something about the H/C that makes it not airworthy. If the main was attached when the "just installed the AAD" rigger got it, or the H/C is not airworthy this new rigger has just signed on to take responsibility for everything. Can the new rigger argue that he isn't responsible for all of the other things? Yes. He can argue that. Can the new rigger argue that he is not responsible for inspecting the entire assembly? Yes, he can argue that. "I just installed the AAD. How was I supposed to know the other things were not routed properly or were not airworthy?" Yeah, go ahead with that defense; but not inspecting the entire rig, including the main, if it was attached, is an unethical and whiny and losing argument. Although it is rare, survivors can sue. I'd hate to be in that chair when the fingers are pointed. And even if you beat the legality...I'd hate to be that rigger when other skydivers talk over the campfire about how you gave an unairworthy rig back to the jumper and he went in. All the while you are defensively repeating, "I just put the AAD in and I never looked at anything else...How was I supposed to know all the other stuff wasn't good? etc". Yeah - right. Ethics are just an academic subject, and a rigger's responsibilities are just words; until the consequences fall. Never do this.
  13. Curious, (of course) whether it opened in time. Anyone know the story? Does the Skies Call 2 picture have a caption, or story, about whether he made it?
  14. Sheath diameter of 550 cord is too small to eye splice/finger trap 550. I would say that the only way to create a reltively smooth eye splice in 550 is to mimic the usual sewing stitch - the double throw ziig zag stitch. It is used above the "L" bars on parachutes, but only as a back up to the usual clove hitch or double half hitch on the "L" bar. If you use the "joint efficiency" formula in Poynter I, I guess you could use the double throw zig zag stitch using E cord/thread (8.5 lbs) and sew the required number of stitches to equal 550 lbs. 68 or 69 full double throw zig zag stitches. And the zig zag stitches would have to be wide enough to bite into the whole 550 cord - not just the sheath. Just guessing here. Haven't tested that. Works on paper anyway.
  15. Newest bad news: The portion of the cave they are trapped in is running out of oxygen.
  16. I never heard of an R-2. But...I have many jumps on a rig with R-3's. Basically just a standard metal Capewell riser hardware holding device which replaced the "two shot" and "shot and a half" release covers. It was pretty nifty and was used for a quite a while (by all of the "cool jumpers) (such as myself ha ha) before Bill Booth's 3 ring - which replaced the Capewell base hardware entirely. The R-3 was just fine, but it did require your releasing both/each sides. Of course the 3 ring was vastly superior and as soon as it came out the R-3's disappeared quickly. Since the R-3 was built to release from a military style Capewell "base" the 3 ring required a new harness design. The military harnesses went out the window very quickly. Not a bad thing.
  17. I recall Bill Booth's *comment from years ago, "There is no safety feature that can't be defeated". *Came from memory: I think I got that right.
  18. "Hey Freak Brothers" by the Booze Brothers And, check out the songs in the movie "Skydive" ("I want to Skydive")and the main song in "Wings" movie. These are the only actual skydiving songs.
  19. "Banana type"? Rather then make up a wierd term it wold be better to use accepted nomenclature: chest mount.
  20. Crap movie: Churchhill. 90 minutes of an arrogant prick smoking a cigar while violin music plays. Got so tired of the same scenes playing over and over. Grumpy, arrogant jerk with a good vocabulary who yells and shouts - (also a dick to his wife if the story of the movie is to believed) and an impediment and an obstacle to clear-headed decision makers. Rather watch paint dry. Or watch cement harden. OK I get it. He is a grumpy loud mouth. As he was in real life, I guess. Movie could have been 15 minutes long. Did Oldman play the part well? Yes. Is it a movie worth 90 minutes of anyone's time? No.
  21. dpreguy

    pd pulse

    Uh "less than stellar flare". I'll say. Only half the flare power you need/expect. It is a dud. Use it for a car cover.
  22. Yup remwa, djl and wendy are correct. Whatever it is going to be, it should be predictable. Yes, find a safe place a long ways off if you are caught up in a tricky situation.
  23. For the "First man down" idea to work, that first man down has to fly a long-enough pattern that allows those above to see which direction he has chosen to land. Frequently, the first man down has a small canopy and knows he is not accompanied by other jumpers under canopy - so he goes "this way-that way- whatever way" until about 300 feet off the ground. Then more or less swoops, usually a 90 degree turn to final and then lands. Only when the jumpers above see that final decision can they set up for the load landing direction. Sometimes they are not that far above. Then by the time the hotshot decides to turn on final, (He is of course at 90 degrees to the wind line -which allows him to choose - right or left) (?will it be a 90 degree turn to the left or the right? No one knows- everyone above is guessing) Result? The jumpers above are in difficulty trying to set up to the to the direction, some so low they are 180 degrees off, seemingly decided at the last few seconds by the hotshot 'first man down." My point here, is that the first man down has to fly a reasonably long approach to make the "first man down rule" work. Jerking right or left on a 90 degree final approach swoop leaves those above guessing and adjusting at pretty low altitudes. "Which way is he going to go?" doesn't cut it. Yes, this happens. A lot.
  24. I have wondered the same thing - as in the original poster's question. It is obvious that this question does not present itself above the arming altitude of your AAD device 1000 feet....1200 feet uh...1400 feet....what ever the device arms at. But, his question is still lurking. BELOW the arming altitude how fast must the airplane descend for your AAD to fire? So, distilling the math (in my head) and seeing that most (OK not all) of the devices are arming at 78 miles per hour descent rate...wow!- the airplane would have to almost be "standing on it's head" to achieve a 78 mph descent rate. At that point, and at that altitude (below 1200 feet for example) the pilot better pull off some miracle to recover from a 78 mph descent rate. A rate I would compare to being in a helluva dive. Tell me if I'm wrong here, but it is my conclusion that below the 1200 foot or 1000 foot AGL altitude an airplane would be in a "ready to crash" mode to have a 78 mph descent rate. So, I am not inclined to worry about an AAD fire below 1000 feet; even if the pilot is descending so fast as to float me to the ceiling! At 1000 feet and below, that would (as Wendy more or less said) be an airplane in big trouble.