murps2000

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/obit.odb.ap/index.html Never got tookin out, kept MC's lookin out. Sad day. Keep them planets in orbit, brutha...

I know everyone says you should fly your body and not worry about messing with your student, and I agree with that. But if you're ever in a side spin, and I mean a real one, you won't be able to fly your way out of it. I'm sure you've seen the video, but I feel I should reaffirm what Bill Morrisey says: Recognition, and corrective action needs to be immediate. I've seen and met TI's with a lot of experience, and they seem able to fly stable to drogue toss no matter what their students do. They're able to avoid the situation completely, and that's really the best way to deal with side-spins. But if you ever get into a bad one, there will come a point where flying won't help, and you've got to man handle your cargo. Even that won't help after a few revolutions, because the forces that develop are considerable, and they develop fast. You won't be able to make your student arch no matter how hard you try. After that you've got to start pulling handles, and you won't like it. Sorry to sound dismal, because tandems can be very rewarding. Good luck, and congratulations on the rating.

ANY canopy can open hard. Some canopies open hard more often. A hard opening need NOT be associated with a packing error. Sometimes they just happen. *** I believe it's true that any canopy can open hard, even those that are normally not known for it. But I don't believe hard openings just happen, just as I don't believe that aircraft crashes just happen. We may not be able to conclusively figure out why in some cases, and we'll have to settle for saying it just happened. But I believe there's always a reason. In the case of a parachute deployment, it is a seemingly chaotic event, with a myriad of variables, such that applying scientific method must be difficult, and a controlled test scenario hard to achieve. But I still think there is a reason for every hard opening.

Seems to me that the canopy type or manufacturer has no bearing on how it opens. Doesnt this all have to do with the way it was packed and body position? I dont understand how a canopy can just out of the blue "Whack" you. There has got to be a reason besides "well, that particular canopy just sometimes does that"...perhaps the nose wasnt rolled enough, or the slider wasnt properly put in place or the body positioning at opening was somehow off....It seems like we should be in total control as to how our canopies open based on how we pack them.....but then again, that is just my opinion...So what do you think? *** I believe packing definitely plays a part, but I can say without a doubt that type and manufacturer is a factor. I got a great deal on an older FX, or so I thought. It was manufactured in '98, but had only 5 jumps on it, so it was basically new. After about 50 jumps on it it started cracking me, and I mean a lot, to the point that it actually damaged one of the cross braces. I got that fixed and jumped it some more, but did a few things. I was really anal about packing it, quarted the slider as perfectly as I could, tucked both sides of the nose inward, made sure the front of the slider was exposed, and made nice tight stows. Even then it would still nail me once in a while if I didn't do everything I could to slow down before deployment. So then I heard about these dome sliders you can get for the FX, and how they really help. I also heard about the x-mod from Precision, and considered that, but that was $430 while the slider was only $125, so I ordered one. I put that on and it made the openings far better, but they were kind of weird, actually. The initial jerk to a feet to earth position was still pretty quick, but then it would seem that the slider would inflate, and it would settle down and snivel a bit before finally opening. I didn't like it because it was essentially a band-aid fix, it was huge, like a tandem slider, and it was a pain in the ass to stow. One of the other things I didn't like about the canopy in general was that the brake settings, when they were stowed, were such that it would almost open in full flight, and would be descending rather quickly. So now with this big slider, if I deployed at 3000', I would sometimes find myself at '1200 or so before getting my slider stowed, opening my chest strap, and finally unstowing my toggles. I think most would agree that one should unstow their toggles sooner than this in case there's a problem with controllability. But I liked the way the canopy flew and swooped, so I jumped it this way for a full season, and just tried to pull by 3500' Finally, I happened to meet a canopy designer who is a competitor of Icarus' and who shall remain nameless, but whose initials are the same as the name of a popular 70's disco trio, and I asked him what was up with my canopy. After sort of shaking his head at the sight of my rediculously huge slider, he had me hold my toggles while he looked over the attatchment points at the trailing edge of my canopy. He then told me to get new steering lines built that were the same as my current ones, but with three inches added to the inboard lines above the cascade. He also told me how to move my "cat's eye" up six inches to deepen the brake settings on opening. Finally, he said I could put my old slider back on. I finally got the lines built about a month ago (another $125.00), and re-installed the original slider. With admittedly some trepidation, I got to test jump it at Elsinore in October at Chick's Rock boogie. I was nervous because of the field elevation there which is higher than where I was jumping back east. On the first jump I pulled at about 4000 agl, which is like 5300 msl, and cringed out of habit. But I got the best opening I've ever had in the 200 jumps I've put on the canopy. And I've put about 20 more on it since, and now it opens like a dream. Also, with the deeper brake settings, it takes me about 500' to get everything put away and unstow my toggles. It's unreal almost, and I really dig my canopy, now. But I have to say that it burns me a little that a design flaw caused me to get ripped off on a dome slider. Further, it has made a complete travesty of all I thought I understood about parachute openings. Rumors abound out there on hard openings, but there's a lot that even very experienced skydivers don't know. Talk to designers if you really want the straight dope.

I've done that; after my second tandem cutaway I had a little 'bouquet' of handles (two drouge release, two-pin reserve, two cutaway cables for a total of six cables flapping about) so I gave it to them. It gives them something to do with their hands since the reserve toggles don't have extensions for them to steer with. *** 'Bouquet', I like that. (Don't know why, but I also liked the term 'Jennifer landings' from another thread.) On my one tandem cutaway, I was happy to have kept them all, after pausing to reflect on the dollar value of what was in my hands. I'll probably catch some heat for this, but I do think this should be a small consideration. I don't mean a priority, but it could be somewhere way down the list, well after determining that deployment of a functioning reserve was successful. Further, I do think it is a bit indicative of the situational awareness exhibited by a jumper during a cutaway. But I certainly don't fault anyone who tosses them, particularly if that's what they trained.

What everybody else already said. Plus, a really BAD place to have one is on any of your articulation points (hip rings, chest strap). If you're checking for them don't forget to look there.

Everyone is dead right in telling you that your judgment was very poor in going up in those conditions. That said, I'd bet nearly every one of us here has done it at one time or another. I know I have, and I'll never do it again. You should be saying the same thing to yourself. What you read in Brian's book is what he teaches in class, and it does not change with the manufacturer of the canopy. If you've got a tail wind and some ground speed, you'll cover the most distance in brakes because you are flying at your minimum sink rate. As you stated, you're using the power of the sky to get you back. If you're flying in no wind, crosswind(crabbing), or into a head wind, but making some progress in full flight, rear risers are better because you now want to fly at max glide. This works only up to a point with the head wind, because if it is too strong, you won't make it anywhere no matter what you do. Better to run to another out than to just delay the inevitable. Some say that you may want to try to penetrate headwinds with your fron't risers, but I wouldn't recommend it to you. The gain is very small when you consider that you kill your glide ratio and you will be landing very quickly if you maintain that flight mode for very long. Perhaps if you are backing out to sea, or in some similar situation that could have been prevented with sound judgement, you would want to use them. Any other, and again, it's better to run to another out. In severe turbulence it is unwise to spend a lot of effort trying to get closer to the LZ. Accept that you shouldn't be up there at all, and land in the biggest open area that you can find, as far downwind from obstacles as possible. In fact, in high winds at all, not just gusty ones, this should be a consideration. Severe turbulence can exist downwind from a building at a distance of several times it height (see page 44 in your book), so avoid landing in this area. If you've totally screwed yourself and have to land in a tight area surrounded by obstacles, and it is windy, you should perform your approach into the area in full flight, and set up as short as you think you can get away with. If it's trees around where your landing, you will feel the bottom drop out right as you pass below the tree line, so anticipate the surge, and maybe rotors(downdrafts). Anticipate that you will need to use your toggles at that point to maintain your angle of attack, and your line tension. Whatever airspeed you still have after that you can use to flare with from brakes. You will need to be very careful how you manage your energy in this situation if you don't want to pound in. You really are better off using good judgement, and avoiding this situation altogether.

Derek did some tests with small mains and large reserves; he didn't have much trouble landing them.*** You mean Hooknswoop? I'd be very interested in reading about his results, if the info is available.

How much crw have you done with your FX? When I had my FX I did a fair amount. Enough to know that doing crw with these canopy's, is not the wisest choice out there. Most of my CRW was on the FX. Youj are making assumptions when you say that I said the turbulance was directly behind the canopy. Do you know what happens when you assume? You make an ASS out of U and Me. Mainly you though. Yeah, okay. Look, I don’t need you in the equation to make an ass of myself. I’m perfectly capable of doing it on my own. And since you used the mean-face icon, rather than convince you of anything, I’ve obviously just pissed you off, so our debate degenerates further to being even less constructive. As I re-read the posts, though, I see that you said that you do agree that there is some turbulence behind a jumper, but you think there’s more behind a canopy. I said that I agreed that there is some turbulence behind a canopy but I think there’s more behind a jumper. However, in heated debate, I think our positions tend to polarize to a point where neither of us is right. Anyway, I realize I was a bit of a jerk the way I came off, so if I ever run into you at a dz, the beer’s on me. What you are tought and what you actually experience may be two separate things.*** Yeah, that’s true. But also, what you perceive yourself to have experienced, and what you actually have experienced may be two separate things. There’s reality, and there’s what we think it is, influenced by our senses & thought processes. And amount of turbulence and severity of turbulence are definitely two separate things.

Just replying to the last post, but I agree with just about everyone here in letting them fly till 1000', and then taking over. I still talk to them about what I'm doing, and what the landing flare is going to be like. I want them to know that although the ground might seem to be rushing up when we come in, we'll get a good flare, and they should just get their legs up when I tell them. Exceptions I have made, though, were second time tandem students (and even then I don't always let them), and experienced pilots. The few pilots I have taken have gotten a grasp on how to handle the canopy pretty easily. In fact, they have been great students all around, but I don't have that many tandems overall(150).

I'm just getting more confused by the minute here. Exposing top skin to the relative wind? You'd need a negative angle of attack to do that. I'm assuming you'd end up with zero tension in your lines if you managed that. I don't jump a highly loaded cross braced canopy, but I'm pretty sure my top skin doesn't see any relative wind (directly) when I let up on my brakes quickly. Anyway, I get the concept, I'm just having trouble believing that there's more of a danger in letting your brakes up quickly than holding deep brakes while flying in turbulence. And, if I'm reading everyone's comments correctly here, we are talking about turbulence or gusts, not just high wind, right? *** Take the maneuver to the extreme once, if you don't believe me. Hold in deep brakes and then drop your toggles, but do it up way high, and bring a few hook knives. (Actually don't do it, I've seen someone go in from taking this to the very extreme)I never meant to suggest that holding brakes was a good idea in turbulence. Airspeed and line tension are your best bet in turbulence. If you feel the lines lose tension, which is indicated by feeling lower G's in the harness, increase your angle of attack. How do you do this? By applying brakes, but it's only effective during the application. Once you are in braked flight, you're back to one G, and now you've got less airspeed. To increase it, you have to let up on your toggles, but do it slowly because this is when you will decrease angle of attack, and consequently line tension. Hopefully you've cleared the bit of turbulence by then. If you haven't, then I think it likely that questionable judgement was rendered in deciding to jump at all in those conditions. As I undertand it, paraglider pilots are way more familiar with these concepts (or should be).

lady's??? .... more like......"children" When doing crw is there not more buffeting when traveling behind a canopy, than there is when making a dock? *** Can I infer from your expressed beliefs based on this statement that you think you are in level flight when doing CRW? You're not. You're descending. It has been previously stated, but not yet disputed, that turbulence will not be felt directly behind the canopy producing it, but above and behind. Couldn't that mean that turbulence felt when your canopy is behind another might be produced by something lower than that canopy, like maybe the jumper under it? Most sport canopies have a glide ratio of 3:1. Cross braced canopies like my FX have closer to 2:1. I don't know what a lightning has, but I bet it doesn't have the best glide. It's certainly no stiletto. And I've been told that CRW formations glide even worse. I don't know at what distance behind another canopy you felt turbulence when you were on level with it, but if you were 25 feet behind it (which is in the neighborhood of where I was when I have), you were probably feeling turbulence from something about ten feet below it. Now, although I hope we're entertaining some people with our bickering (cluck, cluck), I really think we're wasting bandwidth. Let's face it, anything constructive that can be gleaned from this thread has already been said. In a practical sense, a jumper can pretty much remain indifferent to what is actually producing turbulence in front of him, as long as he knows it's there, and where he will encounter it. I think we all can agree that the phenomenon exists, and should be considered, if not avoided. If you want to think that I misunderstood what I was taught, that's fine. I can only say that the course was in english, and I'm fairly fluent. I vividly remember the information, because I used to believe exactly what you do. When I heard different, I listened intently. Not only did I not know about the turbulence created by the jumper's burble, but up until that point, I hadn't even considered it. I'd lay decent odds that up until this thread, neither did you. But don't let that stop you from interpreting your perceptions however you like. Safe docks & swoops, guys... (cluck, cluck...BGAAAWWK!...cluck, cluck...)

The reason you're at greater risk for collapse at that point is because at lower angle of attack: 1) yes, your line tension is less, and 2) you are exposing more of your top skin to the relative wind. Niether of these is an issue with a rigid wing on an aircraft, but on an inflated one that you're hanging under they are. Angle of attack and line tension are directly related. If a wind gust comes along at this point, and it has a significant downward vector, things could get ugly.

with decreased airspeed will come decreased tension in the lines. a gust with low tension seems as though it could do a hell of a lot more to mess up the system than a fast-flying, high G system *** Perhaps you misunderstood the diagram on page 20. No matter what your airspeed is, if it is constant and above stall speed, you are in one G flight. If you increase your angle of attack (applying brakes), you are flying at greater than one G. If you decrease your angle of attack (releasing brakes) you are at less than one G, and in a less stable configuration. This is why letting up on your toggles to surge forward puts you at greater risk of collapse, particularly in high winds. (Read pages 21-2). The speed increase or decrease does not change your apparent loading (and therefore, line tension), but rather is an effect of it's changing due to your wing's angle of attack. I hope I didn't make that sound more confusing, but I probably did. Still gotta find Jerry's article. Sorry, I'm pretty busy right now.

Sorry to make you wait a bit, but here are some things you can check out: http://www.skydiveaz.com/resources/book_canopy.htm http://www.makeithappen.com/spsj/ http://www.dqnt.com/acc.htm I still gotta find Jerry's article for you, tho. It's been a little while and I don't think it's as well known as some of these others. It's early here again, time to go make the donuts....

I learned a lesson this weekend, a valuable one about how bad I am as a pilot... murps, any suggestions for any other good literature? I've read some other works on the subject, but none as thorough and informative as Brian Germain's. If you're into math, a guy named Jerry Sobieski wrote a piece that delves pretty deeply into that end of whats going on above your head. When I read it, I found it interesting, but I wasn't sure about how to practically apply it at the time. Hell, I don't even know how today. Kevin Gibson and Brian Burke have each written a treatise on the subject as well. Give me till after work and I'll try and find out the exact titles (sorry, it's 5 am here). Thanks, but I'm kind of jealous of Spizzzarko's. But then again, my hairline more closely resembles Burt's, if my girlfriend didn't wax me I'd have his eyebrow, and occasionally we share a similar temperment. Now, if I could only find a picture of that snuffalupagus....

Yeah, we all have our problems because of Ivan. He brought some tornados through here and in Virginia, as well as several other places, I'm sure. I feel bad for those people down there in western Florida, tho. That's some scary looking shit. Hope the Gold Coast skydivers are doing okay.

It would most likely work, but (I know you're getting sick of hearing this) I would advise waiting until you've got your landings (flare timing) down pretty good. See, if you hold brakes all the way down, you're robbing yourself of airspeed that would help give you a strong flare. What flare you would still have should be enough, but flaring from brakes is trickier than from full flight. Your window is smaller, and your technique has to be a little different, and pretty much spot on. Now, you could let up at anywhere from 50-100 feet to get a surge to regain your airspeed, but again, this is tricky, and in fact quite risky. I would not at all recommend it in windy conditions. When you let up from braked flight, you briefly unload your canopy as it surges forward at a lower angle of attack. In winds, particularly turbulent ones, you risk collapse. Not to mention the fact that if you don't flare on time, you're going to pile in pretty hard. Have you been reading your book? Check out pages 36-7, Then read chapter 3.

At least you don't live in Pensacola.

How bout "wasabi"? *** It would have to be one hot canopy.

How do you know exactly what was generating said turbulence? Was your canopy behind the canopy in front of you when it felt pronounced? Are you both saying that you were feeling much less turbulence when your canopy was behind the jumper's body that was in front of you? YES I seriously doubt you were misinformed, I think a misunderstanding occured. *** Hey, maybe you're right. I'm not going to put words in the man's mouth. I know who I'm going to believe, though.

D22369 & Spizzzarko, How do you know exactly what was generating said turbulence? Was your canopy behind the canopy in front of you when it felt pronounced? Are you both saying that you were feeling much less turbulence when your canopy was behind the jumper's body that was in front of you? Have you ever watched jumper with a smoke canister under a high WL canopy? If so, what was the smoke doing behind the jumper? If you take 4X4 sheet of plywood and hold it edge first into oncoming wind (or even with a slight angle of attack), and then get your buddy to hold a 2x2 sheet with the flat side facing the wind, which do you think will generate more turbulence? I realize this model is not entirely accurate since plywood is neither an airfoil nor a person, but it should at least demonstrate that there is more to consider than just surface area. And I realize that airfoils do create wake turbulence, but we're flying at maybe 25 mph in full flight. How much do you think they really generate? They don't even achieve true laminar flow at that speed. I would imagine a CRW formation would indeed generate a good bit of turbulence. There are several airfoils there, but there are several bodies, as well. Lastly, assuming I was misinformed at Brian's canopy seminar, do you think then, that the effect of the jumper on wake turbulence is negligible?

We had some excellently maintained tandem rigs, packed by Taz (Navy rigger, has thousands of reserve pack jobs) that would develop tension knots every once in a while. Sometimes shit just happens, even when everything is in top shape. *** He forgot to put baby powder on the lines!!

True, the canopy has much more surface area, but it is meeting the oncoming air with, for the most part, the leading edge. It slices the air more cleanly than the pilot, who is essentially plowing through it.

It is a provisions issued by the FAA when the proper legal paper work has been done and obtained. The provision goes so far as to define a "hook" turn. It discusses axis, pitch, roll and altitude that that type of flying will not be conducted under. Some of our newer canopies out here can be started into a "hook" turn above the minimum leval and still not recover in time if mis-judged. *** That's what we were told by the pro-rated former golden knight who organized our demo over the 4th of July. As I recall, they defined a hook-turn as a turn of more than 90 degrees under 200 feet. I remember thinking that I could probably still hook my FX into the ground from higher than that with a 90 degree turn if I tried hard enough. It was a moot point, tho, because I took my 135 instead. I agree with most here in thinking hooks have no place on a demo. The crowd claps louder if you do a braked approach and dead center the target.