voltage

To the OP: Do you have a tracking number? Even if not, you might try to give the local UPS (if that is how it was sent) place at port of entry (main international airport mostly) a call to see if they know anything about a package being held up in customs. I had a package held up in customs in your part of the world and had to drive to the airport to finally get it "delivered". I had to make a stand though.

Thanks, good find. It's a bit flashy tough with all these fancy graphics. I think I will use it to make my own 1 page checklist.

Recently I did my first weekend of skydiving in about 6 months. To get current again, I went over all my equipment and repacked the canopy, donned (nearly, see below) all the equipment and visualised a successfull deployment, mal above hard deck, mal below hard deck, EP's, after-opening procedures and pattern flying. After that I got on the airplane and forgot to take along my googles. On the pilots seat there was a spare pair, and I had an uneventful solo skydive, and some more good ones after that. Guess I want to know how other people handle medium-length breaks from skydiving? Anygot got a checklist of sorts for that? Do you use some written material to re-familiarize yourself? Is the SIM any use for that? Great to be back in the air.

pchapman Thanks for bringing this up, this is indeed what the aussie pilot was referring to. Here is the direct link to the spreadsheet: http://www.apf.asn.au/documents/pdf/CloudJumping/CJPMuncontrolled_Airspace_Model.xls Very interesting to play around with. I have to admit that I'm too lazy right now to dive into the mathematic model, maybe later. I hope Tom Buchanan will see this topic, I would be very interested to hear his opinion on that model.

stratostar Do you know more details about (1), the collision with the C-130? Reginald It matters if in FF or under canopy... as I am trying to make sense of said theory that only applies for freefall. If that theory is sound, then freefalling through clouds would be acceptable. Its no way acceptable under canopy in my opinion. Your other point is about acceptable losses. It may sound strange, but I can understand the concept. For example, the aircraft you fly to altitude with has certainly been build with similar considerations in mind. The wings I think are only designed to bear 1.5 times the maximum allowable load. Beyond that, they might snap off. To prevent this they would have to be sturdier and the aircraft would be heavier, therefore need stronger engines, consume more fuel, ... so the question is in my opinion not if it is acceptable, but what the chances are. If it is a 1 in a billion chance, I might be inclined to take the risk, a 1:100,000 chance might keep me from jumping through clouds for that reason. BMFin Agreed, I have only 300 jumps so far and yet have had some scary moments where it surely helped to see all my fellow jumpers. mrbiceps We might well have been at the same dropzone last weekend. I didn't mean to slack off Aussie rules, just chose some pointed words to stimulate responses I've learned that from today's news media haha billvon I have spotted airplanes that way too, but I have also been surprised by aircraft although there was someone, me or others, spotting. What I want to say is that one will probably miss at least some planes due to speed, direction, light conditions etc. Apart from the jump plane I have only been aware of other planes oncer under canopy, so far. Thanks all participants for this discussion, I've already learned something so far.

It appears that most of these accidents happened with jumpers UNDER CANOPY and aircraft. The only confirmed freefall collision seems to be the one with the Cherokee. About the glider accident, I guess at 2000ft the skydiver was under canopy already? Following the theory of that Australian jump pilot the chance of actually hitting an aircraft in FREEFALL is extremely remote. Near hits or close misses would be more common but still rare. I'd like to see a report of the simulation they ran. He told me they had to put thousands and thousands of skydivers and many planes flying through the same airspace in their simulation to reach unacceptable levels of accidents. The question is if the simulation was realistic.

From jumping in the U.S. I know that it is illegal there to jump through clouds, because jumpers have to adhere to the same regulations as VFR aircraft, and thus technically have to remain clear of clouds by a certain margin. In the real world this isn't seen that strict, and jumping with anything between clear skies and broken clouds is common. I have never personally seen intentional jumping through a solid overcast layer, though. Further I know that at least some people spot for airplanes before jumping and some people (Tom Buchanan for example) are putting a lot of effort into raising awareness for jump operations for the bigger pilot population. Now I had the chance to jump in Australia for a change and was quite amazed that not only it is legal here to jump through clouds (there is a waiver), but I have seen jump operations commence all day when there where several overcast layers, the lowest down to about 2000ft. Procedure is to fall in place (no tracking, turning points, ...) when in freefall in the clouds and to do slow braked 360's when under canopy in the clouds. But this still leaves separation from aircraft to be addressed. I was told by a caravan pilot well-known in the jump scene here that the APF has researched prior incidents of jumpers in freefall colliding with aircraft and they allegedly came up with only one accident of such nature, in the U.S. Further they allegedly conducted a study where they ran simulations with jumpers and aircraft and said study came to the conclusion that spotting for aircraft and awareness of such was not necessary, because the chance of them hitting each other was so remote that it is deemed an "acceptable risk". Now there obviously is a different attitude here than there, altough I suspect there also is less GA traffic here in Australia. Also the airspace structure is different, and parachute drops (almost?) always happen in controlled airspace anyway. But underneath still is uncontrolled airspace where technically an aircraft could fly without need to talk to anybody. So, this has sparked my curiosity. Are the folks in the U.S. just over-careful and restrict themselves when there really is no need, or are the Aussies reckless in their jumping, or lies the truth somewhere in between? Who can come up with documented cases of jumpers in freefall a) hitting and b) nearly missing an aircraft?

Final update, reply from NZ AVSEC follows, users of models of AAD's other than Cypres please be aware: Thank you for your inquiries. I am replying to you as a group as your inquiries/expressions of concern were all as representatives of the parachuting industry. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of New Zealand is the competent authority in this country with regards to the carriage of dangerous goods by air. Max Evans is a representative of the CAA. His letter represents the stance of the CAA. In regard to the CYPRES product, it is the determination of the CAA that according to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) supplied; the product does not meet the classification criteria for a Dangerous Good and is therefore permitted to travel on both passenger and cargo aircraft. In regard to other brands of this item/product, the responsibility for verifying that the AAD is not subject to the Dangerous Goods Regulations rests with the shipper of the item (in other words the passenger). If the Shipper/passenger can provide manufacturer or other technical information/documentation that states that the item is not a Dangerous Good and therefore not subject to the Dangerous Goods Regulations and may be carried by air, it is the CAA position that this documentation may be accepted. In addition the airline also has a responsibility to determine whether or not they would accept these items for carriage. Aviation Security Service (AVSEC) will not prevent the carriage of the Cypres AAD based on the recent decision by the CAA; AVSEC will not prevent the carriage of other brand/s of AAD where appropriate and valid information is provided to verify that they are safe for transport. I trust that this clarifies the New Zealand position now. Kind regards XXX

Thanks, wasn't keen on a repack on departure out of NZ. I'll be jumping and flying on the northern island in April, so any recommendations for places to go there are appreciated

Looks like this is finally resolved. Today I received a message from Airtec GmbH that they have in turn received a clearance for Cypres cutters to be transported on NZ passenger airplanes. http://www.cypres.cc/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=89&func=fileinfo&id=127&lang=en So everybody with a Cypres in their rig should be fine, glad to have chosen a Cypres myself. I did also sent an e-mail to the above mentioned personnel at NZ AVSEC to make sure the message got passed on to them.

Update: Keith Gallaher from the NZ PIA has responded, and he indicated that they know about and are working on this issue. I made him aware of the letter which DSE received in response to his enquiry. I have a Cypres2 in my rig, so I also contacted Airtec at their German HQ, and they have been helpful and want to look into this also. I don't want to cancel my jumping holiday for s**t like this

I am a jumper who wants to travel to NZ next month, and am a bit irritated about this issue - just sent the following message to the NZ PIA, and hopefully somebody is going to investigate this affair. Thanks for making this public Feeblemind.

Thanks for the help guys

I've recorded a few tapes worth of footage in the last few months, but mostly used it for immediate review directly off the camera. Now I sit on my computer and try to cut the footage and produce something nice. Being a newbie, I am not sure what output to choose. I've read up on interlacing and stuff, understand that. My HC28 records NTSC interlaced, which means 29,97 x 2 half-frames per second. I understand this is how it gets to my computer via firewire. Now it doesn't look very nice when I play it back as such (on fast movement a lot of mismatched lines), so for producing computer video (youtube format and AVI) I want to de-interlace first. But what framerate to choose and which compression codec? Just keep it at the present framerate? Appreciate any advice on how to make it look best on the computer with reasonable filesize. My first try was to convert the framerate to 25 fps, resize the image to 640x480 and compress with Xvid, and it looses a lot of its crisp quality in that step. Another thing is, being back in PAL land at the moment, how to produce a PAL DVD from NTSC footage. Is that even possible with reasonable quality?

To add another opinion, your initial idea seems quite reasonable to me. Of course you save by having your own gear, and it also will deepen your knowledge over jumping a lot of different gear. And there is time to try different gear later anyway (demos, ...). I did the same thing, got my stuff early in my jumping career and have since jumped the same rig and canopy. There is a lot to learn about gear, canopy flight in general and in special conditions. For example it wasn't until a couple hundred jumps that I got a chance to do more serious canopy formation flight, or jump at higher altitude dropzones. Learn a different packing method, etc. etc. While it seems that many people try to downsize as fast as possible I have found written nowhere that you are required to do so beside peer pressure. Depends wholly on you. I personally am very conservative in this regard as I try my best not to aquire any metal in my body.