dpreguy

Members
  • Content

    899
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by dpreguy


  1. Received an update from FAA on AC 105 2E:
    My read on them.

    Paragraphs:
    1 a Website info (b) where to find TSO C23 info
    3 (c) seems to set out how parachute operations are depicted on aeronautical charts. (seems to me to be kind of like a NOTAM info guide.)
    8 Pilot Responsibilities. Page 9
    8b (2) (e) "Skydive Formation Flying in accordance with USPA Formation Flying 101 guidance"

    Also: There is a a new website for those wanting to print the Parachute Rigging Handbook

    This is my read on the 105 2E revisions just announced.

  2. Although I only have 37 hours in a Cessna 152 (a long time ago) I believe you can maintain altitude in a turn if you are flying a powered aircraft. Also, going near the surface of the water at (reported 5 feet) is (I think, not a big deal) if your airplane is amphibious. That is probably how you practice landings. Now, going that low at high speed - I don't know.

    So, the boaters say he was "hot dogging"?. These observers made up that term. Their opinion. Non aviators may have an opinion and not know what they are talking about. I do not accept that term as being true without some other info. If he was pushing or playing aggressively, so what. If you are skilled enough and in control it seems like that is simply another way to have fun/to play. The critics are labeling him as a foolish knave because the non aviation observers labeled him as a hot dogger. Maybe he wasn't at all, but just having fun. I don't see anyone pushing a toy to it's thrill limits as foolish in and of itself. Pushing your limits in any speed sport is risky though if you don't have the skills to pull it off, and you can pay by losing your life. Skydiving, Base jumping, motorcycling, flying etc.. Yes; he lacked the skill on that day and that moment and paid for it with his life. I get that. But to condemn his actions by the wholesale comment, "He was hot dogging", and dismiss him seems unfair. If a person buys a Maserati/ Ford GT/Ferrari, Ducati motorcycle and goes fast - seems normal to me. Buying a fun airplane and wringing it out also seems normal to me. Yes, the slightest mistake in any speed sport can kill you. But that doesn't automatically lead me to disrespect. This pilot just make a fatal mistake that day. I respect him as a guy who lived the adventure life. Died doing what he loved.

  3. Will not. I agree totally with Hooknswoop. A million years ago I packed one or two. It was always this procedure: 1. tighten the loops. 2. turn the rig over to see of the pins are bending. 1. followed by 2. 1. followed by 2. over and over. Never knew if the pull was excessive.. and yes, I could detect a pin bending slightly. then...had to open it to release the tension and the pin was actually straight. Repack and go through 1., then 2. 1.. then 2. All to get the ridiculous exposed pilot chute cap to settle. And, really never actually knowing what the final pull force was. And...which pin was causing the problem. Two pins? Why? No, I wasn't good at packing them. Decided to stop. Not worth the aggravation. Should have charged double to pack because it took 3 times the time to do so.

    And yes, I have watched others pack them and yes they do the same thing. They see if the pilot chute has settled on the top, then turn it over - sometimes 4 or 5 times to see if the pins are bending-flexing. (some riggers admit that is why they are checking, some do not admit it) One denied that was why he was tightening, then checking repeatedly. The other rigger admitted he was looking for pin bending and that was why he did the "tighten, turn over- tighten, turn over" to look at the condition of the pin- bent or not..." And even at packing demos at PIA it is the same. Tighten followed by turn over - tighten followed by turn over and a very long and close look at the pins to see if they are bending. Watch your rigger pack a racer. You will see this. Casually ask him why he is checking pins over and over. See if he will admit he is looking for pin bending. It is the procedure because of the bad design. Only have to do this on pop top designs. Why pop tops anyway? Why two pins? This design has nothing going for it and there is no reason for it in the first place. Not going to pack a bad design that leaves me with a question of the pull force.

  4. angryelf
    Must disagree about listing the Pulse with the other canopies mentioned. In my opinion: The Pulse has less than half of the flare power for landing than the others listed. Have borrowed one and jumped it a couple of times. Pathetic. Have jumped most of the others listed. Although they vary, they have good/adequate flare power for landing. The Pulse? Not even close. Opens ok, flies ok, But for landing it is a dud. This is my opinion.

  5. The device on the guy's leg has a red pull sting/cord still leading to the device. Indicating (to me at least) that it is unfired. Yet, the picture implies the picture was taken after the jump. Gear can be set up with anything for a posed photo, but the leg device (smoke cannister?) seems to have been added for dramatic effect? Unless he jumped it and didn't activate it.

    Hope he didn't miss the target or some other defalcation. Probably get eliminated if he did anything wrong.

    Who knows. Corny propaganda photo anyway.

  6. The ideal storage bag for a canopy is transparent. Of course the bagged canopy is always kept totally out of the sunlight or any other bright light source.

    Why is a transparent bag superior? Because you can, (and should) fold the canopy so the placard is on the outside. That way, when looking at a bunch,( or even one) of bagged canopies you can see at a glance what canopy is in the bag. Drive you nuts seeing a bunch of canopies on a shelf packed in opaque bags. What canopy is in this bag? What canopy is in that bag? .....

  7. I don't own one, but saw it at PIA and was very impressed. The reserve bottom flap arrangement is excellent, with no containment for the reserve D bag. Nice tight rig, as I viewed it. ACE mard is well explained in the manual. Anything Dave S designs has to be good.

  8. No. Don't know about the backwards images.

    The People's Justice League even has a pinpoint perpetrators's map, so you can see where these violators live!

    If you ever started a joke with,"...a midget walked into a bar..."
    ( a microaggression for sure- 'pun intended') you'd be on the perp list and your home would be pinpointed on their map.

  9. Reply to Bob Church.
    I looked up the People's Justice League website. There bars are supposed to do the following:

    "Businesses taking the pledge are given a plaque to be placed behind the bar or counter that reads, “No Racism, No Sexism, No Homophobia.” Bartenders are asked to make it clear to their patrons that microaggressions, offensive jokes, and other harassing behavior will not be tolerated within their establishment, eliminating the slippery slope that allows perpetrators of more heinous forms of violence to think they may be able to get away with it. Participating businesses are marked with a sticker on their door and listed on PJL’s website."

    There is an orange bar to tag if you find a "violation".
    I can see it now. Hordes of People's Justice League "safe place" do gooders descend upon a bar because someone told a dirty joke about women. An offensive joke. A micro aggression. I guess they would quickly interrogate everyone..."Who told that dirty joke about women?... - I don't know what would happen if they identified the offender. Give him a time out? Other child centered parenting strategies? I can see it now,"All points bulletin: dirty joke at the Starlight Lounge!" "Mobilize all cars to that location!" Or I guess they could picket his house and wave banners to get media attention. Banners would say, "This guy went to a bar and told a dirty joke"

    OK so much for the humor. Mr Church, you were right. This Sarah Fick woman and her group, seeking "safe places" exists.

  10. No difference if you need the stolen rig confiscated from the subsequent possessor. (Assuming the possessor is ungentlemanly and doesn't want to say he is sorry and give it back; asserting it is now his property because he "found it in a ditch", "had it given to him", "bought it online" or wherever story he gives.)

    It is a crime to knowingly possess stolen property, and there is a legal presumption that the present possessor knows it is stolen.

    Example: If you find the gear, (1000 miles away in a different state) how are you going to get it? Grab it by force? If your buddy sees it at a boogie or something, and sends you a picture by phone, what do you do? Ask your buddy to grab it by force?

    Nah. If you had a local police report filed you just tell the person who spots it to contact you. You then telephone the police agency where it is found and refer them to the stolen property report you filed. The police agency where the rig is found will use your local original report description to identify it. If the description matches, he will confiscate it and hold it and question the present possessor about how he is in possession of stolen property and if the person is uncooperative may, and probably will, arrest the present possessor. (Probably take into custody and threaten to arrest if the present possessor doesn't explain fully how he came to have the property.) This is absolutely legal police procedure because of the legal presumption that the person who is in possession of stolen property knowingly possesses it. The rest of the story just plays out in a normal investigative fashion. If arrested, or if threatened with arrest, based upon the presumption of guilt, the present possessor is HIGHLY MOTIVATED to reveal where he got it. If he asserts he is honest and unwitting, he will readily identify the person he bought it from, (it may be a chain of sellers and buyers)...etc etc and finally, in theory, the true thief may be found out. Each rats out the previous guy. All may be eventually arrested or some may be considered to be unwitting - depends.
    That's how it works.

    So, think twice about buying a $5000 rig online for $100 because the prosecutor, to support the presumption that "you knew, or should have known" the gear was stolen will use the disproportionate price paid compared to it's value to validate the presumption. Especially if the price is so low it is fishy.

    Bottom line: ALWAYS get a bill of sale from the seller, listing the seller's name and address or driver's license number and have the seller sign it. A bill of sale form always states the seller is the lawful owner. Or make one of your own, but include the language that the "seller is the lawful owner." It can be on a piece of scrap paper or on the back of a napkin. Have him sign it.

  11. Seat packs or backs?
    I do get a lot of Butler pilot emergency rigs. I will watch.

    To defeat ownership rights of subsequent purchasers...you must report these assemblies, (actually the owner has to) as stolen property with local law enforcement; with as much detail as possible. If a rigger finds these rigs, local law enforcement there has to do the confiscating, based upon the actual owner's detailed description and proof of his ownership and the filed stolen property report. The more detailed the description, the better. The owner must file the report, along with your report too. The owner must also provide his proof of ownership in the report - and contact information. That way, when the rigs turn up, all will be ready to go.

  12. Curious. Does an object as small as a parachutist with a canopy (or without) set off a proximity alarm in a big passenger jet? Is this a recordable event in an Air Traffic Control tower?

    Or do big jets even have proximity alarms? I may have been seeing too many "pull up, pull up"movies.

  13. I gave a presentation at PIA 2015 setting forth the outline/procedure/guide for individual riggers who wish to train others.
    I opened with a video outline and then had handouts etc for all attendees. Be happy to send you all of that and more. My students regularly pass the written with 90's and upper 90's, and they know the complete rigger "world" so to speak. Use the Poynter- Schlatter Rigger Course available in Para Gear catalog.
    Over 20 chapters of text and questions. That, (plus other stuff) is the way to go to graduate knowledgeable riggers.

    Using the Dauntless Q/A as a substitute or a dodge for teaching the substance of knowledge is the path to "rigger lite". And pisses me off. Someone without ANY parachute knowledge or any jumps can just memorize the Dauntless Q/A and pass the FAA written, and never have touched or seen a parachute. And, for all practical purposes, not know anything but the memorization dance. Purpose of FAA Written is to see if the person has the legitimate knowledge. Not memorize a $40 guide.

    I'd be happy to send you all of it. I think I have a private message or whatever it is called. You can send your address to me and I'll ship it all to you in the mail.

  14. I have seen the presentation at the PIA Symposium. My takeaway is thus:
    The military static line parachutist is in a limited time situation. And, the lower the exit, the shorter the time. (Stating the obvious) Because of this limited time, and especially at night, the soldier may be unable to determine the need to manually pull the reserve ripcord quickly enough. Not enough time to look at the situation and make that decision to pull his reserve handle. As mentioned, jumps at night make the visual recognition even harder, or even impossible. (I guess what the paratrooper would sense is that there was no opening shock within the usual time he would have felt it, based upon previous jumps?) And, by then it may be too late - time wise. Probably about 4 seconds?

    It is my understanding that this device senses the absence of an opening ( the absence of the deceleration) within a predetermined time and cuts the reserve loop(s). And it is designed to operate only after the paratrooper exits the plane, and it knows when the exit occurred.

    Possible example: The first second he falls 32 feet. The second second 64, Third 128 and the fourth 256, Add these together and he has fallen 480 feet. Four seconds. Assuming a night jump, with no visual ability to see what is wrong, the paratrooper realizes something is amiss and then makes the decision to deploy by pulling his reserve handle. Time is passing.
    That makes him too low and he dies. He is simply too low to react in time. This device goes quicker and it's brain is more accurate and reliable than a human. Even a well trained one.
    I don't know that 4 seconds is the test for this device. I just made that up based upon my static line jumps, mostly from a C -130. Since we jumped (or were supposed to) at 1250 feet, no opening in 5 seconds was the mark for for pulling the reserve handle. In SF all of our jumps were at night on T-10's. Once from a C-123 at 750 at night. Modern paratroopers probably have less time as their exit altitude is lower. This device probably uses a different elapsed time.

    It gives the paratrooper a chance to live.

    This is my understanding of it. I know the inventor can be more accurate and explanatory of what it does and how it does it. As I said, this is my takeaway. I hope I got it right. Only the inventor can actually and accurately explain it.