polarbear

Another general point I want to make about landing patterns and landing areas: The idea is the difference between LANDING AREA and LANDING SPACE. The Landing area is a flat space where jumpers come into contact with the ground. The landing space includes the landing area plus the volume above it where jumpers fly their patterns. I think the idea of seperate landing areas is great, but it is important to note that we have to seperate the entire LANDING SPACE, which includes the pattern space. IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO JUST HAVE SEPERATE LANDING AREAS. The volumes in which jumpers fly their patterns for each landing area must be seperate as well. Fatal collisions almost always happen in the pattern, not at ground level in the actual landing area. I have been to several DZs, which include large DZs that like to advertise how safe they are because they have seperate landing areas, where the patterns are constantly in conflict. Regular-pattern jumpers are constantly overflying the HP landing area under 1000 ft. THIS IS WHERE SWOOPERS ARE MAKING THEIR TURN. THIS SPACE is where things have to be seperated. I think it's important to drive home this concept because in order to improve safety, we HAVE to seperate the pattern space. Seperate landing areas does little if the patterns conflict. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

One other thing that isn't flight related: parachutes tend to open harder at higher altitudes, I expect because of higher freefall speeds. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

My home DZ and the DZ I travel to most often are both at 5100'. Going down to sea level changes things dramatically...as others have already stated, it's at least like changing a full size in terms of the speed of the canopy and the altitude necessary for completing a turn. Another way of looking at it is I find it takes maybe 15 or 20 lbs of lead when I am at sea level to get the same speed and dive. While it's perfectly possible to fly at higher altitudes, it is definitely not something to take lightly. Remember a year or two ago when there were several serious injuries and a fatality at the world cup in South Africa? I gaurantee you altitude was factor. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

As long as the quiz serves to open people's eyes to the risk and seek to improve it, I think the quiz serves a great purpose. While not perfect, it does help identify areas where maybe a person can improve their skill level and safety. I have heard people discussing before that it could be used as a method of policing canopy piloting...for instance if your score is higher than XX, it means you can't fly at such and such DZ. While I've never seen that rule in effect I have heard it discussed. I do not believe the quiz is accurate or descriptive enough to be used in that manner. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

That's pretty normal. When you get into front risers, you take load off of the other controls. The front risers become dominant and the harness is not as effective. If you hang on the risers long enough for the pressure to build up and the risers pull out of your hands, the harness will become effective again. It is true that a lightly tapered 149 won't be especially snappy in the harness no matter what, but getting into front risers tends to reduce harness effectiveness on any wing. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Aerodynamics can be a little tricky and deceptive. However, generally speaking, thicker airfoils are used in low-speed applications. You are correct that the thickness tends to increase both lift and drag, however, at lower speeds the extra drag isn't a problem. With a high-speed airfoil, the extra drag from the increased thickness becomes so dominate that it is too hard to get the wing flying fast, so a thinner section becomes necessary. Generally speaking, if you look at low speed parachutes (accuracy canopies, student canopies, etc) they will have much thicker airfoils than high speed canopies (X-braces). Likewise, in the airplane world, you will see similar trends...lower speed airplanes tend to have airfoils a little thicker and perhaps a little more cambered then high-speed airplanes. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I would echo Dave on the flat turns and stalls...those are both good things to do. It's a little hard to describe fully all the things you can work on on an internet forum, so a good idea would be to find a good canopy coach at your DZ you can work with. They can explain things more fully. Given that, three other skills I think you can work on are: 1) Learning to use brakes and rear risers to maximize your glide or minimize your sink. The SIM talks about both of these. Minimizing your sink means flying in deep brakes; so once you have learned where your canopy breaks into a stall on toggles, spend some time flying around just above that stall configuration. Make some flat turns, fly straight, but just in general the idea is to lose as little altitude as possible. People sometimes are afraid of deep brakes, becasue everything gets quiet, the toggles feel mushy, and you know you are close to the stall point. Practicing builds confidence. As always, a canopy coach can help you learn this. Maximum glide probably means light brakes or some rear riser, but it depends on the wind conditions. Best way to try this out is to get out and try it...try different brake and rear riser configurations and see what allows you to go the farthest. If you don't already know it, ask someone at your DZ about 'the accuracy trick'. This will help you determine exactly where your canopy is headed on the ground, so as you add brakes or rear riser you can tell what gets you the furthest. Once again, a canopy coacjh can help. Also realize that the maximum glide configuration will depend on winds...you can get the furthest glide in a strong tailwind doing one thing while you might have to do something else in a light crosswind and something else in a headwind. 2) Practice flaring. Go through the drills in the SIM for flaring...try fast flares, slow flares, and in between flares. Look for the flare speed that gives you the most sustained lift...again, the SIM explains it in more detail and a good canopy coach can help you out. Also work on flying your canopy all the way to the slowest possible airspeed before touching down, which will give you the softest landing if you do it right. This means 'finishing' the flare...flying the canopy all the way until the you have the toggles as far down as possible without the canopy going into a full stall. Practicing up high builds muscle memory. You can also practice flares up high to keep your hands even and the canopy flying straight ahead during the flare...many people flare unevenly, which causes the canopy to turn during the flare and gives a harder landing. Lots of practice up high builds muscle memory and will help you do it right on an actual landing. 3) Work on getting a solid landing pattern down. Learn the points over the ground where you enter the pattern, where you turn on base, and where you turn on final. Know where these points are over the ground and at what altitude they are. Learn how to adjust the pattern for different winds. Best way to do this is plan your pattern on the ground, go up and fly it, see where you land, and adjust so that you hit your target. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I'm just guessing here, but I would expect the JFX to compare to the JVX the same way a VX compares to an FX or a XAOS-21 compares to the XAOS-27. I would expect it to have a little less total performance than the JVX, but I would also expect it to open easier and be less picky about technique. One way or another I'm sure it is a fine canopy. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

You just got kicked to the curb in your own forum "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I first met Emily in 2005 when I went to Mile Hi for the CPC nationals. Every time I went there after that, Emily always stood out as an especially friendly and energetic person...the type you just naturally like to be around. I know she had many firends who will both mourn and remember her. Blue Skies "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I just learned about the mandatory change to plastic. According to this link http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/expiring_paper_certificates/ Riggers and other folks under part 65 (among others) have until 2013 to make the change. You can do it online for $2. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I think davelepka brough up two important points - If you intend to swoop, you need to take measures to make sure you do have altitude to easily make it back. If that means sacrificing the freefall portion of the jump, you have to do it. Given that, I've jumped a number of x-braces over the years and have found that the best method can depend on the canopy. On Velos, I find brakes work best...deep brakes if you have some strong tailwinds to blow you back, light (1/4) brakes if there isn't much wind or if you are off the windline. Rears can help, too, but I find light brakes work a little better on Velos. On JVXs, deep brakes were still the answer with strong tailwinds, but the rear risers were the ticket in lighter winds. The JVX had a flatter glide overall and I found it was easier to deal with long spots on that canopy. Again, the real answer is you set the jump around your swoop such that you have a good spot, you have plenty of altitude, and you have clear airspace. This really is critical and is always the best answer. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Did you guys get the other three rounds in after I left? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Hmmm....... "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

This isn't for a skydive video, but I was curious if anyone out there knows how to block out part of a video image in either Premiere Elements or Vegas Movie Studio. Basically I want to play the full image, but one corner of it needs to be blocked out or blurred so the viewer can't see it. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Thanks. The suggestions you have for the widescreen issue are exactly what I have been doing. For some reason it isn't working. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I just picked up a copy of movie studio platinum 9. I like it, but I have two things going on giving me fits: 1) I'm trying to burn in widescreen, such that if I play the DVD on a 16:9 television it will fill the screen. I have all my setting set to widescreen, and when I preview the project it's in widescreen, but when I play it on a DVD player I get black bars on all four sides (it doesn't fill the screen). If I edit the same footage in premiere elements it doesn't do this. 2) If I have a video edited up and burn it, then realize I made a mistake (say I mispelled the student's name), I'll go in and try to change it. I'll make the change, re-render, the burn another copy. Even though the project shows the changes on my computer, the version that gets burned to teh DVD does not change. Any ideas how to fix this? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I was able to put a string of jumps on a Sensei 91 this weekend. For reference, my usual main canopy these days is a Comp Velo 90. Before that I had an all-sailcloth JVX 83. My exit weight is 205 lbs. All jumps were made with the PC attached normally (no RDS). I jump at a dropzone 5000 above sea level. General: When I got the canopy, I laid it out on the ground with my Comp Velo 90. This is pretty subjective, but it did appear that the two canopies were about the same size...if anything the Sensei was a little smaller. The A lines were 1.5" longer on the Sensei. Openings: Fantastic. Nicest opening x-brace I have jumped. Slow, smooth, no seeking, easy to steer with the rear risers. Front Risers: Riser pressure is higher than the Comp Velo, similar to the JVX - maybe a little lighter. The pressure builds up quicker than on the Velo, about the same as the JVX. Rear Risers: Pressure is similar to the Comp Velo, lower than the JVX. It seemed very reluctant to stall on the rear risers. I would say the rears have a little more power than the Velo but not as good as on the JVX. I did not have any problems with the transition from rears to toggles at any time. Toggles: Pressure is a little lower than the Comp Velo, way lower than the JVX. It floats very well in brakes and has good flare power. Control range felt similar to the Velo. Harness: The canopy felt less responsive to harness input than either the Velo or the JVX. Dive: I had to start my turn (a 630) about 200 feet lower than on the Comp Velo. The recovery arc is short...definitely shorter than the Velo, maybe even a bit shorter than the JVX. It feels like it builds speed very well. Performance: On most jumps I came out of the turn high due to the short recovery arc. When I did get the recovery arc right, it swooped really well...I don't have enough experience with it to say if it's the same category as the Comp Velo and JVX, but it felt like it had a lot of performance. Packing: This canopy was made of ZPX. It did pack up a little smaller than my comp Velo. Overall: I'd say it is a pretty nice canopy, definitely worth checking out to see if it suits you. No doubt some folks will want a longer reovery arc, but I'd say it makes for a nice flying wing if it fits your flying style. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

One more thought: We frequently make the argument that it's safer/preferable for a swooping canopy to have a longer recovery arc. It affords a higher margin of error, as you can err on the high side and the natural dive of the canopy will carry more of your speed through the reovery arc and into the swoop. The one thing is that the pilot MUST recognize that the canopy has that long recovery and therefore must not put himself too low. I think the same argument applies to flying at higher elevation. When you go up in elevation, your recovery arc lengthens. This enables you to err on the high side and still get a decent swoop. Point is, you MUST recogize the longer recovery arc and fly accordingly. It's all about knowing what you've got and how to use it. If you think you can take your sea level equipment and flying style and do it exactly the same at 5000 feet you will be dangerously wrong. I would expect world-class competitiors to know this, but I can understand how if you've never had to fly at that high an elevation how it could be a big change. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Just another couple of thougts: My observation is that most folks use the exact same equipment when they go to hgh elevation DZs. Since I live at 5000', I fly a canopy that is probably a size bigger than I would use if I lived at sea level. When I know I am going to a sea level DZ for a comp, I will change the way I train. For instance, I might not wear any weight while training at my home DZ (which is at 5000'), then when I get to the sea level DZ I'll start using my weight (which in my case is 15 lbs). OR, I'll train at home with a bigger canopy, then switch down one size when I get to sea level. I find it helps a lot to make up the difference in the dive and recovery due to the lower density altitude. Either way I find I still ahve to take the first day or so and just focus on the recovery arc so I get comfortable with that before I start shooting gates. But again I don't get great results so what do I know. I've just survived my swooping escapades thus far. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

The one serious incident I remember is from a novice competitior at his first big competiton who not only chose to fly a canopy a size smaller than he had ever flown but strapped on a tremendous amount of weight under it for the first time during the comp. I don't mention all this to rip the guy, just to point out that his crash probably had more to do with all of the factors above than the density altitude. I personally find it is much easier to go up in density altitude than down. When I go from my 5000 MSL DZ to a sea level dropzone, I have to force my turn donw pretty low and it takes me a bit to get used to it. I basically have to force the turn lower and trust the canopy will recover faster, which it does, but for the first day or two I'm not 100% sure of my sight pictuyre for pulling out of the turn. That isn't a safe way to fly, and sure as hell isn't the situtaion you want to be in when intentionally putting yourself in the corner and just nipping the top of the gate to get a perfect competition run. You have to be 100% sure of your recovery arc to do that, so you better do what's necessary to get the recovery right first. I also personally accept that I don't make the number of jumps in a year to push my recovery arc as hard as the top guys do. I did it for a short time and messed myself up pretty good as a reward. I make a little over 300 jumps a year, which isn't enough for me to fly with that small of a margin of error, so I don't. It means I never do as well in comps as maybe I'd like to, which sucks, but it's safer and I see it as a necessary precaution. Personally I think a lot of us are in the same boat, but we all have to make our own choices. When I go someplace with a drastically different DA, I usually take the first several jumps - maybe even the first day - and focus just on getting the recovery arc right. No gates, no courses, no other factors. Just recovery arc. Get that dialed in first, then I worry about the rest. I kinda think everyone should do that, but most people don't. I also do think we sometimes are a little too easy with yellow cards. This is a touchy subject, however, because: a) it's subjective b) it's a swoop comp. People are intentionally putting themselves a little in the corner. People will sometimes get a bit too low. It's scary and dangerous but it must be expected. At a local meet it's easier, but when someone has flown halfway around the world to compete in a meet, you better be sure before you disqualify them. c) even the best screw up sometimes. I've personally seen Ian Bobo and Shannon Pilcher smack pretty hard becasue they were pushing things. Nick Batsch lives his life in the corner. d) judges aren't watching every training run. It isn't fair if one dude gets a yellow/red card for something when later in the day other people get away with the same shit just becasue a judge isn't watching. It's a tough problem, I agree, and no one wants to see people get hurt. Not sure what the right solution is but personally I see no reason to take away swoop meets at higher DZs - pilots just have to understand what they are getting in to and adapt. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I've spent virtually my whole swooping career (about 2000 jumps) at DZs at 5000' MSL. There is no reason you can't swoop safely at that altitude; you simply have to understand that your parachute flies faster, dives harder, and will not recover as strongly when in those conditions. Personally I think world-level competitiors should be prepared for this. We had comps in Denver for years without major problems. I strongly suspect that a major contributor in the recent incidents isn't so much the density altitude, but rather the fact that more and more people are pushing their recovery arcs deeper in order to try and get the performance level the top guys get. That tactic works, but you better be on your game. For people only making a few hundred jumps a year (rather than the 1000 + top guys make) it may not be such a good idea to do that, especially in an environment where your canopy is flying more aggressively than you are used to. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Yeah...I just have never had this much trouble figuring out a canopy. I can't seem to get it right, ever. The rear risers are weird on it. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Anybody else out there having difficulty feeling out the recovery arc on a comp velo? I've got over 100 jumps on mine now and I just can't seem to get it right. I can't seem to carry any power through the recovery into the swoop. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

By stock footage, I mean little clips that I want to save and use one every video I produce. For instance I have a little montage I've edited up that has a scene of the plane taxiing out, then taking off, then it shows altimeter climbing from 0 to 10000, then a view of the scenery from the air. I put that clip in every video I produce. How should I save that? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"