alan

As long as the freefaller is not tracking the effect is not the same. Once the canopy is open it begins to fly. If there is a 40 mph wind, the freefaller is still moving downwind at 40 mph. The canopy can fly against the wind at something around 30 mph. Think of a sailboat sailing against the current and a piece of driftwood floating with it. Maybe not a perfect analogy but perhaps you can follow it. I think if the canopy is not flying into the wind then it increases the distance from the group after you, no. Think of the same sailboat and the same piece of driftwood only now the saliboat is going with the current of the the body of water. alan

When Rigging Innovations initially introduced the Voodoo it had secondary covers for the main risers. After it had been in the field for a while they got feedback about line twists/off heading openings as a result of uneven releases of the riser covers. They responded by doing some additional testing in house and changing the design to single covers on the main risers. If you would like details, I'm sure an e-mail to Sandy at RI would get you all you want to know. alan

Actually, that is why I made the posts to the comments in the "How to sink in a X-braced wing?" thread about opening high on a bad spot. The discussion was hijacking that thread so I suggested in one of my replies to you that it be moved or given it's own thread. You simply responded to that suggestion with the same purpose in mind. alan

I wish you guys would actually read what I have been saying. I NEVER said you should never open high on a bad spot. I did say we should re-think the advice that we is just given across the board to open high. I DID say that last out or with tandems and students on an Otter it should be OK. I DID say that some DZs have landing hazards that would outweigh the risks of a high opening and even gave a few examples. I DID give a few examples of when I think it is unsafe to open high on a bad spot and stated my reasons. Most of this was back in the x-braced thread where this all started. Tracking along the line of flight is a bad idea and a poor one to pass on to students. If you and Brian and others want to rationalize this act, go ahead. As has been pointed out, opening just 500' feet higher and flying your canopy efficiently will yield better and safer results than tracking for 10 seconds. If you guys think the reflex reaction to a bad spot is to track along the line of flight, open high, and then fly your canopy back along the line of flight then fine, it is your asses. If you want to pass that along to your students, then fine, it is their asses. If you think that all it takes to get safe exit separation on a bad spot with an Otter full of people you may not even know is to politely remind them, then fine, it is your asses. If you believe that everyone is clearing their airspace before and after opening then fine, but watch a few videos from your DZ and boogies, etc.. Pay attention to the opening shots. Plenty of wave offs but it is damn rare to see anyone check above them. Ya, ya, I know how we all do it all the time. Every time one of us dies, there are endless days of wailing here about how even one death is too many. Calls for mandatory AAD, banning hook turns, new BSRs for wingloading, etc.. All I did was to suggest that we don't make opening high a conditioned response to a bad spot and instead take into consideration the circumstances. I made that suggestion with the hope that it might save that one life you all claim is so precious to all of us. I didn't propose anything new or radical, just a simple reminder of what most of us in the US are taught during our freefall progression as a student based on USPA guidlines in the SIM. Instructors are supposed to teach students to open at their assigned altitude unless there is a freefall emergency that warrants opening higher. Students are to be taught to deal with landing off including hazards and obstacles. I don't recall the SIM defining a bad spot as a freefall emergency that warrants opening high but allowed for the fact that there may be situations that landing off could be more of a risk than not opening at the assigned altitude. I agree that it is our duty to land safely but in order to land safely you must first get under an open parachute safely. So there are more collisions over the DZ than on a bad spot, I guess it is better that we should wait for that one death before it becomes an issue. I agree each of us must do what it takes to land safely, it is akin to the FARs allowing for a PIC to deviate from regulations if not doing so would present a hazard to persons or property. What I proposed was a safer alternative to limiting our advice on dealing with bad spots to "bad spot = open high". And on a more personal comment to Chuck, I think the comment by jdfreefly about taking on a moderator was meant more along the idea that if any one else had posted here that they track back along the line of flight, it would have been met with a flurry of criticisms which probably have included a few from the other moderators. But since you are a moderator, they will most likely either refrain from any public comment or rationalize it as well. I shouldn't suppose to speak for him, so I'll just say that is how I read it. alan

The same. If you open high, you don't continue to drift horizontally while in vertical freefall and the canopy can open facing pretty much any direction, including back along the line of flight. The person/group that exited after you is still drifting horizontally during their freefall. They can catch up to you if they did not leave enough separation on exit. But then, you knew that, didn't you and you know that I know it. You just wanted to quibble. Open at your planned altitude unless there is an emergency that requires opening higher or lower. A bad spot is not always an emergency, but there are exceptions to that and circumstances should be taken into consideration such as DZ location, number of jumpers, exit order, and number of aircraft. I don't know about a progressive attitude, most S&TAs are familiar with USPA freefall training that instructs a student to open at their assigned altitude unless there is an emergency. I can't recall the portion of the SIM that says to open high in the event of a bad spot, maybe you could post it here for all of us. I can recall the sections that deal with off landings, landing hazards, and obstacles. alan

The questional was rhetorical and in response to the quibbling by crazy about accepting the fact that freefallers won't fall into your canopy, but thanks anyway. alan

That is exactly my point. And if someone opens high, then you loose the horizontal separation. Also, I have been trying to get people to understand is that you can't rely on getting the separation you want on a long spot for other reasons. There are people who won't wait long enough and others that will even track back along the line of flight. I understand very well the reasons for Tandems, students and other intentional high pullers for going last. Try this just for kicks. Manifest a four way for an Otter load, that should put you in the second to fourth group out, but be sure to tell manifest and the loader that you all intend to pull at 5 or 6K. Shouldn't matter right? After all, with proper exit separation it doesn't matter if you open high. alan

I'm glad your keeping such a keen look out while throwing everything we know about exit separation to the wind. You are skilled enough to pull it off too, but is that person with 100 jumps who follows your example going to be able to do that? And about always opening above the group you are tracking over, one of them may be reading this thread and be convinced it is OK to open high, it might catch someone with lesser skills by surprise. I might also add, this is not just about freefalling into an open or opening canopy. We also have to consider canopy collisions after opening, that is also a part of the reason for exit separation. This has gotten really interesting. We have gone from justifying opening high because of a bad spot to justifying tracking along the line of flight. I'm amazed. alan

Sounds as if someone with 23 years of experience routinely does this on bad spots. Is it now OK to leave in a middle group and track along the jumprun? Isn't that the same as not waiting long enough to give save separation? Let's say 2000' across the ground is a safe distance. You watch and wait. Good enough. Then because the spot is bad, you track 500' back towards the DZ. What did that just do to those 2000' of separation? I didn't get the impression that what Chuck was describing was a one time in band camp scenario. He is not the only one who does this. My apologies Chuck, I don't mean this as an attack on you, it is just that your example illustrates what I am talking about. I keep hearing "given safe separation it should be no problem" and I agree with that. I just don't have any faith in the given here considering what I hear from people like you here and on virtually every DZ I have been to. "Track to the DZ and open high." I just can't see how someone can say track to the DZ and safe separation in the same scenario. I do not have a problem with opening higher than planned when the spot is bad given the right circumstances, especially when it is something like 500 feet. I expect canopies at about 3000' at most DZs on most loads other than tandems and AFF, then 5or 6K is normal and they are usually last out anyway. 3500' will not even get my attention. I'll never even say anything about 4000'. There are situations where opening a 1000' feet higher than what was planned is not a good idea as illustrated above. alan

We spend alot of time teaching newbies not to track along the line of flight but perpendicular to it. Doesn't that send a mixed message, don't do it unless you are hosed on the spot? And FWIW, unless you are wearing the wingsuit, opening just 500' higher will buy you more distance to get back than tracking for say, 10 seconds along the line of flight. alan

Why do DZs have rules about exit order then? Typically large face to earth RW groups go first, then smaller RW groups in descending order, then large freeflyer groups in descending order, then students, then tandems. Wing suiters get added in if any and skysurfers, if any, I think they put by the door. People like Bryan Burke at Skydive Arizona have spent a lot of time and effort to build a scenario where they think it's a problem to open higher than the next group. Couldn't he spend even more time and more efforts to build a scenario that might convince others? I think people at USPA have even spent time and trouble on this on, enough to have included it in the SIM. alan

Good discussion on probabilities, it is what I was getting at in my last reply to you in the other thread. Each day of jumping has its' own circumstances and they have to be evaluated. For example, I wouldn't advocate pulling low on a long spot becuase it certainly would not help improve the situation, but then I wouldn't advocate pulling low on a good spot either. Would I pull high on a long spot? On a small Cessna DZ doing a 4 way. Sure. Would I do it at Rantoul? Maybe, if I was in the last group out of the plane. Most places lie somewhere in between. What about getting hurt landing off. At Cross Keys you could have some really poor options depending on the jump run and how bad it is. Landing off in the desert at Coolidge could put you in some nasty cactus. Landing off here in the midwest might mean landing in corn field or some hay field. I have literally hundreds of off landings and no injuries, I own a balloon and also do a lot of impromtu ultralight jumps. I don't have to rely on a windsock at a DZ. I guess my point is that landing off can be a learned skill and the better you are at it, the lower the odds of it hurting you. It is a lot like doing other things that have risks, you get better at it the more you do it. For most people it would not be worth the effort and risks incurred during the early stages of learning. The real problem I have is with exit separation. Yes, the odds of a collision given safe separation and good canopy practices are low, but go up considerably when you don't have those things. So that really makes the question more about the odds of having safe separation on exit. If you believe safe separation on exit is not an issue or is only a problem with inexperienced jumpers, just look at the posts in this thread. Experienced jumpers agreeing that separation is a function of aircraft airspeed. Your experience may differ but you did say something about Kato and the Pink Panther that I think makes my point. Bigger planes, bigger DZs, more people all add up to more unknowns. On virtually every load I have been on at a boogie or big DZ where the first group or two takes too long getting out, every one else except the tandems are yelling go! go! go! and they give poor separation. The odds of having safe separation on a long spot are pretty low. Who here hasn't experienced looking up at the plane just after exit and seeing the next group or individual already leaving, even after you asked them too asure you of a safe wait? I wish I had $100 for every time someone has said "Ya, I'll give you a good long count" only to look up and see them out the door in about 3 seconds. Who here hasn't experienced a close call? Sure, the close calls are invariably due to poor exit separation. That is exactly the point. If I open high and the person behind me didn't give good separation, the odds for a collision are much higher, especially with mixed flying disciplines. We shouldn't rely on vertical separation, but it is nice to have if someone makes a mistake on the horizontal part. Due to the probabilities, I would not just make a blanket decision to pull high on a bad spot , but evaluate the whole situatuion case by case. If I'm last out of an Otter or back with the tandems and students, sure I would. If I'm on a 4 way at my little Cessna DZ, sure I would. A busy day at Eloy, probably not. At Cross Keys, it would depend on how busy it was and the jump run. At Rantoul, maybe if I was in the last group out. What do I advise others to do? Be aware of the situation and do what you think is right for you with the existing circumstances and those can change on every jump. I wonder if "a little higher" means the same thing to you as it does to the people at the other end of the plane? Is it 500'? Is it 2000'? With adequate horizontal separation neither should be an issue. Do I mind if the group exiting in front of me opens at 5 or 6K? No, because the separation variable is in my domain, I'd feel safe with seeing them open at any altitude. Would I always feel safe opening at 5 or 6K? No, not always, because the separation variable is now someone elses ball. I'm cautious with the trust I place in people I don't know. It is not always easy to know who the uninformed are until it is too late sometimes. Things change, I may be informed one day and uninformed the next. I can recall when the informed people were advising us to fly in half brakes in turbulence, now the informed people say on the newer canopies, use full flight. I can recall when the informed people only advocated RSLs for students. That is still debated, but I think today most of the informed think they are advisable for expreienced jumpers as well. I can also recall when an RSL was not advised for use on an elliptical canopy. Again, it is still debated, but it seems that with the tide is changing on that one as well. Well, thanks for the conversation. I hope others at least were stimulated into some thought on the topic. alan

I agree Brian and I think my posts bear that out, although time in the door is really a function of groundspeed. When looked at that way it boils down to the same thing. Yes, I said essentially the same thing in a response to Kelly (skygod7777). This one is often forgotten, especially on a long spot. The natural tendency is to head straight back. Yes, in perfect world. My worry about telling people to open high if the spot is bad is that we can't rely on the mentioned measures and won't be able to until we are all perfect. Probably, it is a big sky, even if emotion won out over intellect in the group behind you. If you tell load you re going to open at 5k to experiment with a new canopy, they usually insist you go to the front of the plane with the tandems and students. If we could rely on adequate separation and canopy tracking, that really shouldn't be the case. I just can't help but feeling that opening high on bad spot means you are putting too much trust in the people behind you and thereby increasing the risk to yourself. I guess other factors come into play. We should also weigh the comparative risks of an off landing to the possibility of a collision. At many DZs landing off is no big deal, just a longer walk back. At some DZs, it could mean landing in water, trees, structures, etc.. At some boogies, they used to warn the new people not to open high unless they were out last and informed the pilot. Well, this has really sidetracked a good portion of this thread. Maybe they should move it or give it it's own thread. alan

I agree, but with todays bigger planes nd bigger DZs and less emphasis on spotting, or even looking before going, I just don't trust those people after me in the plane. I don't know them or their abilities. It just should not happen, but we know it does. Very true. In different post of mine in this same thread where I am addressing this issue again, I point out that one should be checking the separation distance by observing now far the airplane has travelled across the ground. I know Mike Mullins often says wait "x" number of seconds, but that is usually based on an observation of ground speed. People don't know that so it gets to be a rule of thumb, not realizing it changes as the conditions warrant. Apparently I'm leary of those behind me for good reason. That 45 degree advice is as bad or worse than opening high. Several people have done models on exit separation and demonstrated the weakness with the 45 degree angle. Try John Kallend's web-site, he does a very good analysis and does a nice presentation at SDC safety day. John is a regular poster here, maybe he will jump in. I think his profile may have a link to his site. Depends on the ground speed of the A/C and the winds. That is kinda my point, but I also am not too impressed by anyone that thinks it is OK to open high on a bad spot from an Otter, especially if they are using tht 45 degree thing on a day with high upper winds nd mixed groups of jumpers. The problem is, as you can see, you can't count on having enough separation. Pulling high and then flying back down the windline is a bad idea. First fly at 90 degrees to the windline then turn and fly parallel to it back to the DZ. Think about another Otter on the same jump run, 2 or 3 minutes back. The first group on the first plane all open at 5 or 6K then fly back along the jumprun. The first group on the second plane opens at 2500'. Hmmm..... No, some of them need more thought. Another example is flying in half brakes in turbulence. The newer canopies used today are just not designed for that. 45 degrees for exit separation, nope. Open and fly back to the DZ on the wind line, not with bigger planes and several of them using the same jump run. Yes, we all need to improve or spotting knowledge and skills. It is a continully ongoing process. Ummmm...... ya, but it is not always their fault. They need good information to begin with. Things change, we need to be aware and adapt. alan

Yes, Dude and yet the canopy manufacturers also test thier canopies with various pcs and recommend specific types and sizes. I know of at least one canopy manufacturer that supplied the bag, bridle, and pc for their canopy. I guess the people at companies like PD must not know shit when they publish recommended pcs or they must just not realize it has NOTHING to do with the manufacturer, as the canopy only functions when it's out of the bag - after the pilot chute's job is complete. There is nothing wrong with going to either manufacturer. If they give different advice, go with the one that works best for you. alan

Nice posts Brain, thanks for the valuable information. One thing has jumped out at me several times now in this thread. I think this practice should at the very least be approached with considerable caution. I'm on a 4- way RW group out of an Otter. The group ahead of me is an 8-way and they take a little longer than normal to climb out and pick up their grips. Upper winds are say 50 kts, so they notice this and take their time. My group moves in the door and watch the ground travel to ensure adequate exit seperation. By now the groups of freeflyers are getting concerned about their spot and are encouraging us to go. We eventually go when it is safe. The group after us is 3 way FF with no grip exit. Maybe they are by now quit convinced that they have gotten quite hosed on the spot. They don't realize that the spot is still good and the longer delays between exits were due to the higher upper winds. Big DZ, we don't alwys know each other. These guys are relatively inexperienced yet and may not fully appreciate the subtleties and importance of proper exit seperation. These guys move to the door and go in just 2 or 3 secs. Now lets go back to my 4-way group, you're on it BTW! We had planned breakoff at 3500' and opening at 2500', at least that is what we told manifest and the load organizer. But, you see the bad spot and break off at 5000' and deploy around 4500'. Did I forget to mention we had video, so the camera guy dumps at 5000'. Now we are those freefly dudes that were in such a hurry to follow us and what was their planned opening altitutde? Does anybody know those guys? Will they open high? Say didn't a tandem follow them out, were they expecting anyone to be open at 5000'? Just think of the poor person doing vid for that tandem, flying back to earth to get the opening as he falls away. Just a few thoughts posed with the intention to motivate us to think about this. Think more. Learn more. Live longer. Hey, while I have you and am thinking of it, you were going to send me Ninja to evaluate last Spring. Did that just die slow death, or was it set to a back burner? alan

That used to be the standard practice and that advice is still given. One or two cessna DZ, 4 or 5 people on a plane all doing the same type of freefall, it should not present too much of a hazard if you all exit together. Big DZ with Otters and Casas, etc., 20+ people exiting on the same jump run, mixed groups from solo novices to free flyers and wing suit flyers, I'd have to say that opening higher than what you planned is inviting disaster unless you are the last one/group out. You are the first, second, or whatever group out. You notice a long spot. You dump at say, 5000'. The next group notices the spot as they get in the door and compensate by giving a quick 3 sec of separation instead of say 5 or 7. They were expecting you to open at say 2500', so they think that they are good opening at 3000' to help compensate. There are a lot of different kinds of bad decisions to make. Things have changed, maybe we should re-think some of the old standard practices to be more in tune with the conditions that are more common now. alan

How much higher? @4000'? @5000'? maybe @6000'? What about anyone exiting after you? Can you expect them to open above you, when they are expecting you to open at 2500' to 3000'? You like to open above 3000'. That is OK because you let people know and they plan accordingly. Planned higher opening altitudes are just great. Opening higher than planned because of a bad spot is inviting disaster. I only mention it not because of what you said, but because it would be easy to misinterpret what you said. alan

My father was a gunner on a B-17 when they bombed the German submarine pens in Trondheim. He made his first parachute jump a short time later on a mission to Regensburg. The other gunner snagged his D handle on the way out of the door. He had to exit at about 18,000' with an armful of silk in one hand and the pc in the other. Said it opened just fine. You should be Ok going to a smaller pc, check with the canopy manufacturer for some input from them. Is Malvik a common name in Trondheim? alan

For sure. Usually someone that is learning on their own and is too timid to ask for help. It is a pity because I don't know of any experienced instructor that would advise a new swooper to rely solely on an alti. The flip side of that coin is the novice swooper that tries to learn by eyes only and hasn't learned to scan. For every bounce/close call we have seen with a pilot focusing on the alti, there is one who has target fixation and has the same result. Again, this could be avoided with proper coaching. The critical component is situational awareness. Keep your eyes and thought process moving. The alti is only a tool. BTW, while some UL pilots don't have an alti, I'd be willing to bet that there are more that do than don't. Most students learn to fly a pattern with an alti and as they gain experience in their own UL, some pilots use it less. Very similar to skydiving. alan

Rapide links also require that you inspect the barrel for over tightening which may reveal itself as a small hairline crack, which will result in failure of the link at loads less than what it is rated for. alan

I woud also add in the specific airfoil used. The nose design. alan

I believe my canopy was the first production x-mod and served asa beta test. The first four jumps on the original x-mod congfiguration all open like you described, a reverse fortune cooky. They stayed on heading and open nicely by just pulling down the rear risers. I asked Chris Martin if I could expect that to be normal. He said most certainly not and asked me to send him my brake lines from below the cascade as they had tried several configurations and it sounded as if I had gotten one that they had abandoned. I sent him the old ones and he senr me the new ones. Sure enough, they were differet, The openings are just superb now. In several hundred jumps now, ther have benn only 2 or3 that wanr the end cells to fly around in front of the nose. Pump th brake, bump the risers and it is no problr. My guess id that onmy canopy it started t oshow up after a few hundred jumps, so it may be s critical linetrim situatuin. I wrote a fairly extensive reiew of the X-Mod VX a few months ago that appeared in Skdiving and I thi nk PA may have incorporated it into their wed site Magazine a few months ago. you mayfing somevaluable informatiion in it alan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the trick someone showed me is too role the 4 left cells into the left half of center cell and the right 4 cells into the right half of the center cell. So do a lot of other people. I even used to ten years ago. Most will never have a problem, but every now and then some one will need to get their canopy repaired because of the load put on the nose by tucking the rolled cells into the center. alan

Yes, they really are much different although it may not seem so. The airfoils are different from the typical Lissaman 7808, providing better performance. The canopies are trimmed differently and they are cut and sewn more accurately. Construction techniques have improved so that the canopies can withstand much higher load forces, yet have smaller pack volumes. The fabric is not just F-111 any longer as it has undergone many improvements over the years that have increased the strength and durability. The original F-111 fabric from the George Harris Co. has not been manufactured for over 10 years and even that had undergone at least seven improvements before the company was closed. The changes and improvements are there, they are just not as obvious as going from round to square or 5 cell to 7 cell. But I don't believe that it diminishes the importance. I agree with you, the progression slowed down during the 80's and 90's, but there are reserves available now that are much improved over what was available 20 years ago, you just have to look closer. alan