wwarped

maybe so... but doesn't PD manufacture BASE canopies under contract? do you think they have/use special measuring equipment for the BASE models? (and I accept that PD makes a high quality product...) I'm thinking that the better BASE canopies are designed to be tolerant of imperfect manufacturing. the perfect design means little if it can't be reliably sewn. run enough parachutes through a shop, and there is bound to be measurable differences during the run. they add to the "personality" of the canopy. BASE canopies can suffer from far more abuse than skydiving canopies. water, tears, hard openings, all beat up a parachute. the fact that they keep functioning well speaks highly of their tolerance to abuse. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

congrats on the recent AFF! enjoy skydiving for awhile. it would be extremely hazardous for you to consider BASE now. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

well... Icarus came out with the Crossfire II to quell customer dissatisfaction. they originally used 3 factories, and claimed to have serious quality issues from one. I even heard one trustworthy source claim the sewing was off by inches. several incidents were reportably caused by poor quality control. many users complained their canopies flew poorly. Icarus issued bulletins, etc. mine continues to fly fine, a friend claims the same. ours were manufactured in Spain. so, when Tom says different examples of the same make/model can differ, I'd agree. humans HAVE noticed it. I also expect most manufaturers pay closer attention to quality control since this occured. (oh, and don't forget how the trim changes as lines age...) DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

kudos to the Daishers! if you happen to be in TF at that time... be good neighbors and let the focus be on the cause. avoid talking about BASE and instead talk about how the event is helping the kids. show you care about the greater community, and they might care more for us... DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

isn't Montana home to some smoke jumpers? DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

from the title of the show, I'd agree. after viewing the 2 shows previously mentioned, I'd say they portrayed both stunts as carefully constructed and planned. neither show came close to implying anything reckless. they depicted both jumpers quite positively. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

N/A

skydivers must deal with government at all levels. in the US, this begins with the FAA and continues through the local airport authorities. the EPA may impose new regulations, etc. so, what would your initial reaction be if someone appears and says, "I'm from the gorvernment and I'm here to help?" I'm talking about gut level reaction, not what you would actually say... thanks! DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

I do not know. you might be right. as I do not know either GP or Dixie, their history, etc., I can only speculate. your argument is based on knowing them, respecting, and trusting them. mine is not. therefore, I believe I gave "equivalent info." care to answer the question? DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

That is avoiding my question.... not answering it. Where do you draw the limits? personally, I don't. life is NOT full of absolutes. if absolutes ruled those professing "thou shall not kill" would refuse to enlist in the military. (just one example) where do you draw the line? DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

I was attempting to illuminate the question of a previous poster, "where do you draw the line?" the actual events do not appear to differ much from the scenario I created. many jumpers are familiar with the one I described, but few see an unapproved rig being used. drawing attention to authorities, whether on duty or not, raises the profile of that activity. it MAY provide the autorities a reason to look for such activity. an A&P friend of mine hates when student pilots find a dubious, odd, maintenance issue. not for that issue, but because the remaining students constantly think they find the problem. typically, these copycats are non issues that detract from other mainenance activity. I do not know all facts to the initial incident. [hypothetically] GP & Dixie might have spent an amazing night, laughing and talkin. they had NOT gone to bed. while strolling along, she asks GP, "what's that?" 'course GP has NO choice but to do as he did. alternatively, Dixie might have been exhausted and cranky from a long shift the previous day spent trying to control these unappreciative skydivers. she hates the convention and how it consumes her time. she is trying to relax for 15 minutes before her shift starts when GP runs up to here to start her day off early... [/hypothetical] limited FACTS have been posted and many have gotten them wrong. people tend to read based on their personal biases. once we settle on the known facts, we can only speculate. you seem happy to agree with GP, but hesitate to act similarly in my proposed scenario. you stumble over "yeah, but's" pondering all the possibilities. if you agree that decisive action is required on one, then why no the other? DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

And where do you draw the line? Does anything go? In any society there has to be limits on behavior. What are yours? the question of acceptable limits is appropriate. remember, GP and the FAA inspector did NOT prevent a FAR violation. the skydiver's lack of readiness prevented the violation. I accept GP was trying to prevent the jumper from trying it again... but he did involve the FAA in a non-violation situation. imagine, it's after midnight, and drunks are talking about the wicked stuff they will do on the dawn load. they obviously will be in NO condition to skydive. do you call the FAA rep to educate them? just as the balloon situation, they have the intent, but will likely lack the ability. maybe this valid question of limits is why GP started the other thread... DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

Jake barely landed in that tiny shark cage. he was still moving, so I wonder how much his legs hit the side of the cage... Peter had a rough jump. off heading opening. bit of a flare to clear a ledge. he did great, but looked rattled. everyone else looked pumped, while he had a shocked expression. I liked both episodes. (and would never consider doing either. respect to both.) DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

maybe they hate climbing. they'd rather specialize in real low stuff. they aren't checking the canopies, but the D-BAG! DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

ain't that what Yuri just said? his variables include time and terminal velocity. so all that stuff about shape, friction, humidity, etc. get incorporated into the terminal velocity. guess we need someone all instrumented up to figure out that number. GO FOR IT! DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

it looks like you created ratios of Bernoulli's dynamic pressure... [sarcasm] what about changes in density as you descend? what about compressibility effects? [/sarcasm] it's a nice little derivation to show the relationship between acceleration and velocity. did you do something as simple to come up with the speed calculations? DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

true to expand on what you wrote: Mass * A(gravity) - aerodynamic forces = Mass * A(total) understanding A(total) depends on how someone calculates the aerodynamic forces... it is not simple. Yuri might be right, I do not know his starting assumptions. overall, incorrect. granted, friction plays a significant role in boundary layer conditions. but shape typically impacts the resulting forces much more. that is why Cessnas use tapered fairings. they are much more costly to manufacture than a simple piece of tubing. but it makes a huge difference. remember, the coefficient of friciton would be the same for a painted tube or a painted fairing. but the fairing has more surface area. defining forces only on friction would mean the faired strut would generate MORE drag than a simple tube. as the fairing is for more costly to manufacture, and would represent greater drag, why do it? the answer is the profile drag on the fairing is far less than that of a tube. shape matters. edited to add to clarify, the discussion above meant to explain why Cessna streamlined the wing support strut. it also explains why manufacturer moved away from wire cross-bracing. (just in case I mislead with my choice of terms.) DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

you are right. this place CAN be rough. some of it is good natured ribbing. some isn't. one poster already asked for another to be kinder... please also understand, BASE requires a certain toughness. you might carry someone out with a broken leg, you might be the one carried out, there might not be someone to carry you... also, you must have confidence in your choices. if harsh criticism here rattles your confidence, you might want to rethink things. if you can argue that it is right FOR YOU, then you stand a fighting chance. this forum has harsh realities. the realities of jumping can be far worse. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

one poster tried to predict behavior based on High School physics. that frequently is Newtonian and neglects the effects of air. when I fly or jump, I really like the effects of air. thus the H.S. physics model no longer applies. I tried to build upon that model, to the extent required by most jumpers. (there is much I do not consult before jumping, string theory being one.) I meant to inform at a level ALL could understand (while obviously risking offense via oversimplification). apologies if my approach annoyed. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

I would have thought something heavier with a smaller surface area would reach terminal slightly faster then something of the same size and lighter. why is this not so ? acceleration due to gravity is a constant, period. in High School physics, they like the phrase "neglecting the effects of air." thus, a feather and a sandbag will fall at the same speed, in a vacuum. it explains gravity quite well and explains motion in space. unfortunately, if the air has NO effect, there is NO aerodynamics and aircraft can't fly. the air creates a force that fights gravity and changes acceleration patterns. roughly, much depends on the ratio of surface area to weight. compare the surface area/weight ratio of a feather to a sandbag... people have correctly mentioned pressure, temperature, humidity, etc. as things affecting terminal velocity. I personally think the shape YOU present to the wind will can have a greater impact. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

some would call it a sense of humor, and a lack of self-importance... I'd rather give respect based on thoughtful advice than extensive experience. (generally, the experience leads to solid advice, but not guaranteed...) we all (including me) should attempt to understand before jumping to conclusions. heck, non-jumpers can provide incredible advice regarding new BASE sights. it should be about the knowledge, not the size of someone's following. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

Gary, this thread has gone on for a long time. you inflamed people by saying that using an unapproved, single parachute system is stupid, repeatedly. I believe everyone agrees it is illegal to use an unapproved, single parachute system at the WFFC. there is nothing wrong with reminding skydivers to use the appropriate gear. I prefer education to regulation. (and in this case, the regulation failed to stop the skydiver.) I view this thread as an attempt to educate. it seems odd to read post from folks who think unapprove, single parachute systems will suddenly stop working if jumped from an aircraft. properly used, it should have a much LOWER malfunction rate than proper skydiving gear. and these canopies are far SAFER to land. but stupid? really? (if used incorrectly, o.k.) the main risk is the potential impact on the sport of skydiving. surely the FAA keeps tabs on the WFFC, so it does not surprise me they maintain a presence. it might even facilitate some jump activities. obviously, they should not witness any violation of the FARs. (skydiving with a single parachute system is just one of many.) but terms like "stupid," "twit," etc. as seen in these posts? is that constructive? helpful? of educational value? professional? surely as a representative of USPA, you should set a higher standard. isn't that what they teach in various instructor training courses? when do they say "call your students stupid, it works great!"? good BASE jumpers evaluate personal risk BEFORE every jump. few skydivers can imagine the amount of planning for each jump. BASE jumpers understand this as most started out as skydivers. to those arguing this skydiver endangered himself, probably not. to those arguing this skydiver endanged the sport, true. just as if anyone failing to use a seatbelt, jumping less than sober, pencil packing, etc. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

uh, hm. per a post on a different thread, Jeb been replaced by Eli, another experienced skydiver/BASE jumper. your assumed negative impact did not materialize, in this instance. care to reconsider? or will you deny this fact and repackage your argument? DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

aircraft speed tends to be horizontal and is NOT a factor in standard terminal velocity (which is vertical). DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

or since the wind blows THROUGH it, some would call it an "A." others call it an "O" (for other). it's really your call. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse