markbaur

No foolin', there I was... Flying a 182 on a misty day, the jumpmaster putting out a static line student, nobody else in the airplane. The student slipped on the step as she was making her way to hanging from the strut, and the jumpmaster thought maybe he could help if he just got a little....further....out..... Next thing I knew, he was gone, and the student was hanging from the strut, looking at me. I gave her a thumbs up, "Look up and go!" She did. She was going to anyway: a 45-degree bank is 1.4 g's; 60 degrees is 2 g's; the airplane is rated to 75 degrees of bank, 3.8 g's. With AFF, it would be nearly impossible for the inside jumpmaster to leave without the student jumping too. And the procedure for being alone in freefall is to pull immediately. If you're using a 182 or similar, the pilot can't help noticing folks on the outside of the airplane when he tries to close the door. Mark

My Cypres manual says about the Expert Cypres in section 2.1: "It activates the EOS when it detects a rate of descent higher than 78 mph (35 m/s) [note this is vertical speed, not speed into the relative wind] at an altitutde of apx (sic) 750 feet above ground level (AGL). In the event of a breakaway below this height Cypres will operate down to apx (sic) 130 feet AGL. Below 130 feet AGL opening is no longer useful. For this reason, Cypres ceases operation below apx (sic) 130 feet AGL. Airtec doesn't tell us the algorithm for deciding there is a breakaway, but based on what we know about the rest of the program, it's unlikely to be just a height/vertical velocity calculation. It should be possible to figure out when the initial freefall-to-canopy transition occurs, then to calculate approximate canopy descent rate, and to use that in turn to tell the difference between an acceleration due to canopy maneuver and acceleration due to breakaway. If so, and if Airtec has included such a routine in the software, than a hook-induced Cypres fire would most probably be a mis-fire. Sections 2.2 (Student Cypres) and 2.3 (Tandem Cypres) don't say anything about minimum firing altitudes, although the student section does warn that it's possible to exceed the vertical speed limit of 29 mph with a normal canopy. Mark

Mounted for an upward pull? Mark

A lot like your reserve, I suppose. Mark

And there are plenty that don't, even with repeated visits to the avionics shop. Short (no pun intended) of an electrical fire, a major malfunction of a piece of avionics is usually not catastrophic. We demand an extremely high degree of reliability from a Cypres that we do not demand of other electronics, so we should not be surprised that Airtec would err on the side of caution. Mark

***The APF doesn't require seals. Neither does the USPA. The FAA requires the rigger to seal the rig, but there's no regulation that requires you to keep the seal on your rig. In fact, the pull-force test (22 pounds) is for a rig without a seal. However, most folks, including most FAA inspectors, think the seal is a requirement, so you ought to make sure yours is intact. Mark

Actually, the service life is 12 years + 3 months, but your question still stands. Helmut can't say what happens after that, so if you find a way to experiment, you can be a test pilot. How many other electronic devices do you know that are as reliable after 12 years? Mark

My reserve has a straight pin, and because of the way we sit in the airplane, it is much more likely to be pushed out than the pin on my main. If your pin is falling out, the closing loop is too long. The amount of pressure on the pin shouldn't be a lot different whether you're jumping pull-out or throw-out. I know of no curved-pin pull-out systems. Mark

Why grandfather luck? If a student made a successful landing in unexpected 20 mph winds, would you waiver the winds to 20 mph for his subsequent jumps? Were any of the injuries/fatalities on the first jump at that WL? Why not protect current as well as future jumpers, by requiring them all to use safer equipment? Mark

When field-testing the FXC 12000 in an altitude chamber, the allowable range is plus or minus 300 feet when the unit is set to fire at 1000 feet. There are no required tests for other altitudes. The sticker on the side of the control unit says the planned opening altitude must be at least _1500_ feet above the set altitude. If you set the firing altitude to 2000 feet, you should end any pursuit at 3500. Mark

At the risk of sounding cold-hearted, I'd point out that someone else's catastrophic failure is a non-catastrophic but obvious failure for me. It changes my behavior, even if it's too late to change theirs. Mark

That's what we said in the course, but I'm reconsidering. Think about Cat D. The ISP calls for turns: 90s, 180s, and 360s. What our student doesn't do on one jump, he gets to do on the next. When he's done all the turns, he gets to go to Cat E, whether he's done them on 2 jumps from 13K or 8 jumps from 8K. Congrats on the AFF-I. I look forward to seeing you on the other side of our student. Did you learn the secret handshake? Mark

All I could find was a 1-liner on IRM page AFF-18: "AFF jumps should [my emphasis] be made from a minimum of 9000 feet AGL." There's also a reference on IRM page AFF-21 on emergencies, "Poised exits should be eliminated whenever the exit altitude is below 7500 feet." I couldn't find any place which said if we got to an unexpected 8500-foot ceiling we had to ride the plane down. (I don't think there would be a lot of training value in a low jump like that, though.) Mark

This is the first time (oops!) I've heard this. Please cite your reference. Mark

One more time: Although the USPA does have minimum pull altitudes for all skydivers, it does not have wind limits for licensed jumpers; the PRO requirements are for the protection of the spectators, not the skydivers; the night jump "rules" are recommendations, not requirements (except for needing to do 2 for a D license), as are the CRW requirements. Requiring equipment for unlicensed jumpers is not the same as requiring equipment for licensed jumpers. We've done pretty well with the RW/FF/night jump/CRW/etc. recommendations in the SIM, section 6. What we need is your sub-section on Canopy Progression Training. Can you have a draft ready for the S&T Committee's meeting in July? Mark

I'm not trolling. Your claim is that peer pressure causes unqualified jumpers to use canopies they're not prepared for. Part of that peer pressure is watching cool jumpers dragging a toe through the swoop pond -- or seeing reports of swoop competitions in Parachutist. They see the behavior, they seek to emulate it. If you are serious about reducing the pressure to downsize, you'd at least consider de-glamorizing fast canopies. Mark

How about banning swoop ponds, swoop competitions, the PST, and any surf longer than 20 feet? Mark

USPA does not make me wear an AAD, although I choose to. And while USPA has established minimum deployment altitudes, USPA does not put out wind limits for me. USPA already has a WL BSR for students, "All students are to be equipped with ... a ram-air main canopy suitable for student use." I don't know any operation ignoring this BSR. Mark

Your point was that manufacturers are pushing little canopies, and are therefore at least partially responsible for the consequences, including reducing the size of their future customer base. PM me with your private accusations, then. Mark

From your post, we know at Z-hills there are some number of injuries and fatalities in the 100-600 jump group. What proportion of the jumps made at Z-hills are made by this group? Can you say statistically that their injury/fatality rate is out of proportion to the number of jumps they make? As a "destination" DZ, do you think Z-hills attracts the kind of jumper who is more likely to hurt himself? What kind of peer pressure do you and your friends exert? What kind of management support do you get? Can you think of ways short of regulations that would accomplish your goals? Mark

Why? Statistically, you are more likely to be injured on your next jump than to go any number of jumps and then get injured. If you are serious about regulating, then you shouldn't exempt yourself. Mark

Name one. Mark

Have any regulationists suggested limits which would prevent themselves from jumping their current canopies? Or is it only other people who are unsafe? Mark

There are two "A" license proficiency cards, a 2-page version, and a 4-page version. Which one are you referring to? Mark

I don't think you can generalize from one incident, or hope that you can be as lucky as someone else. As for spreading the impact out over as much of the body as possible, I can't help imagining a landing that begins by dragging your toes, on the way to doing a full frontal body plant with arms outstretched. A PLF does spread the impact out over as much of the body as possible. What would be the better right landing technique? Mark