SethInMI

Thanks for all the comments. I want to make clear, Lugi never specifically directed any HP landing advice at me. I just listened in. There were 4-5 pilots doing the HP class, at anywhere from 1.5 to 2.2 WL. Most struggled with the technique only a guy on a Velo at 2.0 seemed to be able to do it well. I think most if not all have gone back to there old techniques. So I gather this may not be the best technique for me at my WL. Great. On the subject of coaching and mentoring: I jump at a single Cessna DZ, and I have a few guys who watch my landings and give advice, but no one I really feel is a good HP coach. I am working on getting to some larger DZs next year to get some more in depth advice from established coaches. [edit] I will say one thing I think Lugi emphasized that everyone understood, the importance of accuracy and consistency. Be at the right point at the right height, then do your maneuver in a consistent way. Lugi liked audibles as an aid for this, but I don't want to start into that, esp for someone at my exp level[edit] It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I put my rig in a standard 22in roller suitcase. I don't say anything about it, and once (out of only 8 times) have I had to take it out and have it swabbed. I don't see a point of drawing any attention to it. If someone asks, then have the whole TSA advisory and Cypres card etc ready and understand they have the right to pop your reserve. I also carry on a laptop bag, and I check my clothes. In small jets I have to put the roller bag in the cargo hold, but it has stiff sides so it helps against crush. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I said airspeed; I meant windspeed. The uppers as it is usually called. The speed of the wind is made with respect to the ground. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I took a canopy class w/Lugi this summer, and although I didn't participate in the HP landings, I listened to Lugi coach the HP pilots. His training technique was: 1. Deep Brakes 2. Double fronts 3. Lift one riser 4. Do rotation 5. Pull riser back down to double fronts 6. Hold doubles 4 seconds 7. Release and recovery arc... 8. Toggles Any rotation should be started high enough to allow for 4 sec of doubles before starting the recovery arc. Now I have been doing double front landings on my 1.2 loaded Sabre 2 and having great fun with my mini-swoops, especially in no-wind conditions when I can actually cover some ground. Up high, I have been doing rotations, trying out the sequence Lugi suggested, but I don't have the arm strength to overcome the centrifugal force of the rotation and get the riser back down to do double fronts. I just was wondering if anyone else used this technique and had any tips to help me or comments about it. I am pretty much done jumping for the year, so I won't be doing anything new till next year, and I have the winter to build up some more arm strength. [disclaimer: I know this is the internet. As a smart man once said to me, "I just like talking about canopy piloting"] It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Did you read my post Bill? You appear to be disagreeing with me, and then restate my point. I only refer to your 1) above in my post with Fast. Ground speed is just a handy way to refer to the vector sum of plane airspeed and windspeed. It is this vector sum * exit delay that determines the group seperation for groups with same fallrate (plus winds at opening alt). You said so yourself in your 1st post in this thread. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Fast, You can't talk about windspeed without referencing the ground. You say "The ground speed of the airplane never makes a difference in air-to-air separation of groups of skydivers." But windspeed is referenced to the ground. It is ground speed that matters. Bill says the same thing in his 1st post in this thread: Distance between groups will be given by aircraft ground speed plus wind speed at opening altitude, times seconds between groups. He is exactly right for groups with the same fall rate. I think you basically on the right track though. An FS group will drift more than a FF group. If the ground speed of the AC is negative, then put the FS out 2nd will help, it just adds the movement of the plane to the FS drift. The caveat is the canopy time. Here the windspeed at opening altitude can push the 1st opening FF group back toward the FS group. Simple physics. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

John, I thought you were agreeing with Bill, but I just wanted to make sure. I know moving the Earth around does not affect what is happening in the air, but the is the reference frame we are using. The plane speed is 80 knots w/respect to the air. The airspeed is 100 knots w/ respect to the ground. So in defining the problem, you have brought the ground in as a reference. Bill et al: Look here are some simple numbers to illustrate my point, drawn from John's program: Uppers 100 Lowers 0 Wind shear at 6000ft Jump run at 70 10 sec btwn groups Group seperation when 2nd group opens: Freefliers out 1st : 2300ft Belly fliers out 1st: 1800ft Now if the lowers are not zero, then it changes quite a bit, but because the canopy drift, not freefall drift. I just think this whole talk of reference frames and "slow out 1st always is best" is not very helpful to understanding the correct answer to this admittedly very hypothetical question. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I don't see how changing a reference frame would change the distances between opening groups, certainly at the non-relativistic velocities we are talking about here. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

John, You never come out answer the question directly. Do you think that given your comments on the nature of problem that the answer to the jsaxon's question is too trivial? To BillVon et al: I played around with John's simulator and it verifed what I said, if the headwind is greater than the plane's airspeed, putting freeflyers out 1st gives greater seperation at deployment. However, one thing I did notice from the program is that with the freefliers out 1st, they have alot of time under canopy before the belly fliers open. If winds are also high at opening altitude, they can be blown under the belly fliers while under canopy. So in this hypothetical situation: from a purely freefall drift POV, freefliers out 1st gives greatest seperation between opening points. But depending on the lower level winds, canopy drift may change that. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Uh-oh. I disagree with BillVon. That always makes me nervous. Anyway, I know this is hypothetical, but even if the lowers are less than the uppers, the FFs should get out 1st if the plane is "backing up" - has negative ground speed. Check out my cool mspaints that illustrate my point. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Yes. Freeflyers out first, like a downwind run. FS jumpers will be blown further backward, so if the plane is already moving backward then having them out 2nd is a good thing. If the plane is moving backward, you probably will need some looooong delays, as like gearless said it will be moving slow. Don't use the 45 degree rule! It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I got a brand new Triathlon at 50 jumps, slippery and crinkly as hell. Psycho-packing was the only way I got it in the bag. Still using the method. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

15 DZs: Hastings, MI Fremont, MI Twin Cities (in WI) Plainwell, MI Adrenaline Air Sports, Western NC Perris, CA Skydive Alabama? (south of Huntsville) Hinckley, IL PCV Schaafen, Belgium PCV Zwaartburg, Belguim Lodi, CA ZHills Deland The Farm, GA Midwest Freefall, Romeo, MI I like the small DZs. The ones where the DZO brings you a beer at the end of the day and thanks you for coming out. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Search, this has been asked before. Find the one where the guy wore one under his shirt, then the shirt got lifted up accidentally and the next thing he knew he was pinned by security. Someone saw his belt and thought it was a bomb. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

bill weighs in: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1483959#1483959 It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

BillVon's checklist says: If and when you do try it out low, start at lesser angles (i.e. try a 15 degree turn first) make sure the pattern is clear and make sure conditions are good (soft ground, good winds.) Work up gradually to a full 90 degree turn. 15 degrees is not alot. Start at 100ft and work down if you want, you should be able to see that you are back under the canopy well before you have to flare. Take it slow. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I just missed the presentation about the crash, but I made notes from the summary. If I got stuff wrong or when the actual text is released I will edit it. 1. No way to tell why turbine blades fractured causing the engine to fail. 2. Pilot failed to maintain airspeed with one engine. 3. Autofeather system was broken for 5 years, and if operative this may have helped, although there was evidence the pilot feathered the failed engine. There was no MEL filed for the broken system, although it was placarded. 4. Pilot used only 1700 ft of runway, if he had taken off from one end, he may have been able to set the plane back down on the runway after the engine failed. 5. Greater FAA oversight may have prevented problem. 6. Fatal injuries for parachutists caused by restraints (not wearing?? single point??) 7. ?? 8. Testing for dual point restraints are needed. The chief reason for the crash: Pilot's failure to maintain airspeed after engine failure. Safety recommendations from NTSB: 1. FAA should research with USPA for best dual point restraints. 2. Revise 105-C? for guidance about these systems. 3. USPA should work with FAA for dual point systems? 4. USPA should educate members and encourage members to use developed dual point systems. This was me typing up what the chairman was reading, so I may have got something wrong. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I think it might have more effect on the recovery of the canopy. Please explain it in details. How is a different riser would change the stall point if the guide ring is about the same distance from the connector links? I think he means if you are used to flying deep brakes or finishing your flare with your arms and hands in a certain position relative to your head and shoulders, longer risers will make that position deeper in brakes and you may accidentally stall. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

The course I took from Lugi was not marketed as essential or advanced, so I guess it was essential, but we had some HP guys getting coaching so I learned alot about HP landings too. Lugi tried to gear his instructions and debrief to what ever the pilot needed. Regarding his video and debrief style, I have not taken any other courses to compare him with, but I thought he did a good job of mixing praise with constructive criticism. We had about 11 people in the class and I would say ~60-70% of classroom time was spent watching debriefs, and I learned something from watching and listening to each landing, HP or straight in. And watching him land the 37 was a nice bonus. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I took Lugi's course earlier this summer. It sounds like what you want. Light on theory, emphasis on jumping and debriefing. Lugi uses Scott's materials, and he started the course by asking each person what there goals were and then worked on those, although on most of the jumps everyone was doing the same things, Flaring, Stall point, etc. We had several HP pilots and they spoke highly of the tips he gave out. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I took Lugi's class last month, and based on what I learned, I would suggest buying or borrowing Brian Germain's book, The parachute and its pilot, and then talking about the book with someone who understands canopy flight and has taken a canopy course. Then do some jumps and have them video your landings and analyze them. Things to focus on: 1. Flaring. Lugi teaches a 2-stage flare, planeout and then finish. 2. Braked turns. 3. Get back from bad spots. Rear Risers and Deep Brakes. 4. Pattern Flying and accuracy. 5. Stall Point and recovery. 6. Understanding turbulence. I would think a good instructor videoing your landings would be a great help, it was to me. The one thing you would miss in a class is watching everyone else land and get debriefed. I learned just listening to Lugi analyze eveyone's jumps. Just my 2c. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Thanks for the ideas and advice. I am going to just push the whole video evidence thing till next year. Then I can practice what I want to do well in advance, get hands-on advice, do some dry runs, see how it looks, etc. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Thanks for the comments. I suppose I will save the flag for next year; with a fundraiser you always have to be prepared to move the goal forward a bit. The jumps are over two days. The streamer idea is tempting, perhaps add a 4ft section with each jump. What are the safety risks in that? Get tangled in the legs or around handles? Be prepared with a hook knife? I see an advantage to starting with a short streamer and slowly making it longer. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I didn't know what subject to put for this post, but here is my issue: I am participating in a fundraiser this weekend, getting per jump donations. I hope to do between 10-15 hop-n-pop jumps, and I thought it would be fun if I had my landings videoed so I could prove I did all the jumps. Edit the video to make it just a few seconds per each landing. So I wanted to be able show each jump number on my person in some way that would be visible from someone 50 ft away or so. Don't want a lot of hassle. So my ideas are: 1. I have some cotton fabric I could make a small flag out of perhaps 1.5ft high by 2 ft long, somehow affix it to me (my leg?) and deploy after opening. The flag would have the jump number on it (1-15). 2. Wear a white tshirt and put number on it. 3. Put stripes on legs 4. Deploy a streamer that got longer with each jump 5. ??? Anyone have any easy safe ways to deploy a small flag or any other ideas? Thanks, Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

That is so cool. Reading that book growing up was one of many inspirations to go into engineering. I still remember one light fore and one aft set so the intersection indicated the correct height. So simple, so effective. Brilliant! It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".