pchapman

Members
  • Content

    5,760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8
  • Feedback

    0%

pchapman last won the day on April 3

pchapman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

150 Good

Gear

  • Main Canopy Other
    75,88,135,154,265,265,282, & some rounds
  • Reserve Canopy Other
    2* PD143, 2* Phantom 24, Baby Cobra
  • AAD
    Cypres 2

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    (Ontario, Canada)
  • License
    D
  • License Number
    1014
  • Licensing Organization
    CSPA
  • Number of Jumps
    3900
  • Years in Sport
    30
  • Freefall Photographer
    No

Ratings and Rigging

  • Tandem
    Instructor
  • USPA Coach
    No
  • Pro Rating
    Yes
  • Wingsuit Instructor
    No
  • Rigging Back
    Senior Rigger
  • Rigging Chest
    Senior Rigger
  • Rigging Seat
    Senior Rigger

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. All the stuff the FAA has jurisdiction over! Plus one of the articles stated, just to rub it in: Pocket change for Red Bull, if they're still on board with the "gee I forgot to tell the team about the FAA denial" thing. Cool stunt though.
  2. That reminds me about trying to sell a Vector II for a friend, maybe 20 years back, that had had a few owners over the years. When I checked the size code listed on the rig, it just didn't exist in the manual. And when I checked the serial number, it said "BOBBY". Hmm. I got the impression it was a rig that some trusted production line guy was allowed to assemble for himself.
  3. Well... it's not like it pulled out of the dive and flew off towards the horizon. It just went into a spin, which is pretty much straight down in the air mass-- Just that with a slower descent rate than skydiver-freefall speed, it would drift a longer time with the wind. So then it is just a matter of how big their safe area was, whether the "going elsewhere" was still well within a safe area or not. I guess we don't really know anything about that?
  4. Yeah we skydivers would certainly expect any responsible stunt organizers to make sure a NOTAM was issued. That should have been arranged in any case - for skydiving & aerobatic flight - but maybe that somehow got lost in the mess of the failed waiver request.
  5. Replying to Yoink (who started another thread but Wendy locked it and directed people to post here): The guy in the video is Paul Bertorelli, a main contributor at the AvWeb aviation news site. Who is also an active skydiver. So he'll understand flying & skydiving stuff better than your average youtube commenter.
  6. A longer video, 11 min, not as crisp, shows a bit more of the dive where the one plane starts to spin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiygfKgI0I Andy abandons the attempt pretty quickly. As soon as the plane spins, it decelerates rapidly "up away" from the jumpers. Andy, still head down and far away, doesn't even try to follow. Bit hard to tell where everyone is when the camera is filming from an angle, zoomed in from far away, but that's what I got out of it. We can hash out all the possible causes, talking about trim settings, C of Gs, differences without having the safety pilot present, maybe rushing the pushover, maybe rushing the exit and all that. But in the end it is one of those examples where all the practice they did, wasn't enough when the cameras were rolling for the big event. The real thing just wasn't carried out exactly as it had been in practice. (Looked like Andy was using a pretty high performance parachute (Schumann platform, removable slider). Huh. Who am I to talk, he has a million jumps, he can make his own choices, and choose a compact rig he is familiar with. When I was doing stupid parachute stuff, though, where I might end up low, I tended to go with something super reliable and docile...)
  7. Hey, of course we are interested in new facts and info when they appear. If you have further info from interviews by Luke or whomever, please share instead of wasting time on snark. Note that some of the comments (like mine) were based on an aviation news company's presentation of the original FAA .pdf letter that denied permission for the flights.
  8. Did you miss the video? (The one posted in this thread was a little awkward to watch at least on some devices. Plenty of stuff out on youtube, some all chopped up and edited as part of commentary or newscast videos, but this one is a decent dump of what Red Bull seems to have released: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFj2hQVQKc) The plane was in an inverted spin. I think it just pitched over slightly too fast, for whatever reason, and with its pitching momentum went past "zero lift". I haven't re-watched videos closely, but it seems they exited the airplanes very quickly to not waste altitude, say at 60 degrees nose down. It wasn't as if they got into a nice sustained vertical dive and then said, "all good, prepare to exit, now!"
  9. No, I am in favour of public safety. But I'll argue the FARs and the waivers to them are dumb. One can legitimately argue about the FAA ruling in this case, but in general I argue the FAA has rules that are ridiculously restrictive to 'fun' stuff that is allowed, not just in more anarchic countries, but also well regulated ones like in Europe (eg BASE rig jumps from paragliders). Or allow make allowance for differences in rules from other countries where the risk to public safety is small. (eg, visiting foreign skydivers using their own riggers unless gear is TSOd, or lack of similar allowance for visiting glider & aerobatic pilots. I won't go on with more examples.) The FAA's argument about needing the backup pilots in case of airspace intrusion is pretty silly -- how about all those skydivers in freefall and aerobatic pilots in the middle of a routine, who aren't likely to notice someone who hasn't read their NOTAMs who is getting close to 'their' airspace? Then the FAA might as well decree that all jumps should be tandems so one person can keep a lookout. Still Red Bull isn't blameless either. One wonders if they started the process soon enough, since they were faced with a last minute denial, instead of being able to revise procedures and ask again a month later. And they claimed that the stunt had some extra validity because it could be inspirational to STEM kids or whatever. The FAA's denial, as seen embedded in the AvWeb article (once again, https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/plane-swap-stunt-fails-no-injuries-repoted/ ) did note that the FAA would have allowed it to happen if they had backup pilots just in case. Who could either then demonstrate their inverted spin recovery skills, or add to the skydivers in the air....
  10. Oh they are supposed to work in any attitude, using the rocket deployment, pulling the canopy out. Still a chance of the bridle getting caught up in something, but a good 'angle of fire' should minimize that. It's more about airspeed limits for the deployment. Seemed like a good idea to reduce the crash speed in case "an airplane got away". But it was a bit more of a snivel than there was time for with that activation altitude, however they rigged up an AAD to the pull system. Edit: Probably designed to snivel a bit with its slider, to keep the loads down during higher speed deployments. Not easy to build a parachute that is light weight and can work with the kinetic energy of a regular sized Cessna or Cirrus etc. I don't think there's a hard standard on how fast aircraft recovery parachutes are supposed to open under different conditions. One is expected to not pull them too low, whatever that is. Some FAQs for the BRS for Cessnas, if that's the system that was used: https://brsaerospace.com/questions/ I think the FAA is pretty dumb, they just don't seem to cater their system to 'fun' things like jumping BASE rigs from ultralights, or stunts like this. Even when public safety is taken care of. (Unlike the dumbass Trevor Jacob.) That being said, it really isn't a good idea to blow off the FAA either.
  11. pchapman

    Oopsy

    My simplistic gut reaction is that the FAA thinks it is in charge of airspace, and all others, hey, those dummies should check the NOTAMs. Sort of, "If they want info, they phone us; we don't have to phone them." Obviously the communications failures and security agreements around Washington will be more complex in reality.
  12. The AFF hop and pop is a good time to get the student to review their ability to make freefall time calculations. They can calculate how long it takes from 5000' or whatever down to the minimum student opening height, which is still higher than the experienced jumper height, which is still higher than the experienced jumper height used to be in earlier years. The student will discover that they really have a LONG time to sort things out and pull, despite their instinctive fear that they "are low and have to pull soon." (Edit: Though I don't know at what point those calculations are taught in the US system. I'm more familiar with Canada, where a student might be already working their way through the apppropriate PIM, basically our SIM. In any case one can always do the calculation for the student...)
  13. ... Hell, ALL of the rings are a who's who...
  14. I have seen a DZ (here in Canada) start out as "no full face" until say jump 50. After all, nothing wrong with having a cheap "standard" open face to start with before buying expensive equipment. But in recent years they relaxed that rule once people started coming to the DZ from the tunnel who already had had bought super pricy full face helmets. Added into the thinking is that modern full faces with big visors don't obscure vision of handles like some of the old designs. Searching the USPA SIM (the current '21-'22 one) I see no mention of "full face" or similar, other than that it can be more awkward to communicate in the case of canopy collisions. Similarly searching the SIM, I see no mention of any particular sort of visual altimeter suggested for any students or novices. No restrictions there at all that I can see. (Section 5-3 is the one that goes into details about altis.) They do recommend avoiding audible altimeters until a student already has altitude awareness. So if there are any recommendations by the USPA, they would have to be somewhere else, that I don't know about not being a USPA instructor. I'd be interested to hear other DZ's experiences.
  15. Nice find. Did MARS do any similar testing vids with other rigs for comparison by any chance, to see what vertical distance the PC's get? Riggers or jumpers often pop reserves to see how it goes, but as you know, not usually in some standardized configuration with the rig nearly horizontal.