pchapman

Members
  • Content

    5,572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Feedback

    0%

pchapman last won the day on January 15

pchapman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

45 Neutral

Gear

  • Main Canopy Other
    Array
  • Reserve Canopy Other
    Array
  • AAD
    Array

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Array
  • License
    Array
  • License Number
    Array
  • Licensing Organization
    Array
  • Number of Jumps
    Array
  • Years in Sport
    Array

Ratings and Rigging

  • Tandem
    Array
  • Pro Rating
    Array
  • Rigging Back
    Array
  • Rigging Chest
    Array
  • Rigging Seat
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The static line was made of some heavy tubular webbing or something like that, good for likely thousands of pounds of load. Note that this was a direct bag static line setup, rather than static line extracting a pilot chute or whatever those systems were like. The student gear used an SOS system, so when the student pulled the emergency handle, it cut away the main too. The main canopy fell away at some point, rather than staying in the bag at the end of the static line. (What with the odd angles involved, I guess friction on the risers, despite being released at the 3-rings, could have extracted the canopy from the static line bag.) As for do's and don'ts, the obvious lesson is to close any main container correctly to avoid bad things happening (freefall or static line), and that any 'pin check' (such as by an instructor) look for proper routing of the bridle.
  2. In the end the closing loop ripped out of the rig (maybe distorting the plastic in the flap enough for it to do so). The static line stayed intact. From my 2009 post after it happened at the DZ I was at: " It is thought that the tab of the static line went into the heavy dacron closing loop from the right instead of the left, which is not normal DZ procedure. [Packer error, not caught by instructor] Still, it was a surprise that the static line actually locked up on itself in some way, rather than just causing a hard pull for a moment while it rotated back to the right orientation. I've never heard of the DZ ever having anything like this happen before in its many years of operation. " The question of hook knives always comes up. The DZ aircraft 'always' had a hook knife, and the instructor happened to also normally have one. But his got lost the previous week or something, and someone doing maintenance on the plane moved the big hook knife in the plane shortly before. While some will say 'The instructor should have checked for the knife!', it is one of those things people don't check all the time as it was standard DZ equipment on the plane. (Did you check for the fire extinguisher in the airplane the last time you boarded?)
  3. But you can't hold that policy against them, as that's only one part of it: If the batteries are replaced between 8 and 12 years, and no mandatory replacement until the unit is expired, then the batteries are considered good for 12 years. So yes Chris Howard, for someone to say 10,000 jumps is a "standard" is using too strong a word for it. Nevertheless, as Gowler pointed out, the expectation in the industry is many many years without a battery change for most jumpers.
  4. <s> Clearly no need for a Sarcasm tag in this thread. <\s>
  5. I'm not familiar with what originally came with Northern Lites. I have an old 2 pin Northern Lite I use for accuracy and other jumps. Back in the early 2000's when assembling it, some parts were missing. So I put in a 357 Magnum reserve PC, as that was a commonly available generic reserve PC (before the single-loop-through-the-PC era), and have stayed with that. I tried packing it using a nice strong Vector PC but the spring was so strong it kind of distorted the whole pack job, given its old 2 pin design, so I didn't proceed with that. (Note though that I'm in Canada using our rules, so I'm flexible with mixing and matching, not worrying about TSO's or any company's approval.)
  6. No slider? Ouch. On the other hand, I do wonder just how much effect the slider does have, as the openings are rather hard in my very limited experience... (Single keel that is. Dual keel is nicer all around.)
  7. What is acceptable probably depends a lot on the DZ's conventions. Lowest step: I and others filmed for years with no sight without issues. At first one has to check how the cameras are pointing relative to the helmet and one's eye gaze up or down, with some checking of video to make sure one isn't consistently low or high. But after a while it becomes natural to fix one's gaze at the right angle. I even did some 4-way video that way, although if one is filming at narrower zoom angles a better sight might be useful. Next step up: Others used a mark on their goggles. Commonly used was a stick-on ring of paper -- one of those reinforcements for 3-hole punched paper holes. It is out of focus being close to the eye but that provides a good "see through" ring. Next step up: The cheapie ring-sight as suggested above by IJskonijn.
  8. Just looking at replacement main bags on skydiving gear sites reminds me that UPT uses brass looking grommets on their main bags, whether full stow or semi-stowless.
  9. That's generally true I guess, but I know there have been exceptions in Canada. Off topic for the thread in general, but to be overly-picky for the record: 1. With some licence level, someone at the CSPA made a mistake and jumped over a block of numbers. I think they subsequently left them blank. This was maybe 20 years ago. 2. When the CSPA overhauled the licencing to match better with the FAI (mid 2000's?), they jumped up to the next block of 100 or something like that, for licences issued using the new qualifications. (E.g., I am D-1014 under the old system shortly before they changed. They might have restarted at D-1100 for anyone submitting the new paperwork.) (PS - Bob Wright was my first jump PFF instructor at the end of the '80s!)
  10. I see you might have been responding to my post. I was giving a hypothetical example of Cypres vs. Mars based on recent years and wasn't talking about prior issues that have been resolved. For example, some old issues for the Cypres that I can think of, in case this helps: RF & static interference early 1990s when it was the only electronic AAD (yet Vigil had its own static electricity issues when introduced later), firing when it was supposed to but on a swoop at a time Airtec arrogantly dismissed the idea of it happening (2005), defective sensor & 2 misfires (~2008), supplier changed a component that led to certain units becoming unresponsive after going thru the startup cycle and showing ready to jump (~2013). Do you have any good examples of unintended firings? It is an area where we unfortunately don't have any sort of database but most people are going only on individual memory and published bulletins. And of course there's from time to time some up and coming swooper who manages to fire their AAD before realizing they need the extreme swoop mode instead. (Eg, wasn't there a swoop M2 firing recently on some other thread?)
  11. Plenty of AFF style students have problems locating the ripcord and getting the pull correct the first time. And that's on the actual AFF1 jump. Not everyone gets to practice once on a tandem beforehand. So yes you'll have to get it right to progress much in the AFF stages, but you've already gotten more practice than most. Second time will be easier. (Although you'll want to do plenty of ground practice as the handle location will be shifted somewhat on a real AFF.)
  12. Just from what I've seen of rigging customers, Vigil has been upgrading control units and software whenever someone sends their unit in for the 10 year service. Very nice of them. Not sure about the cutter but I doubt it would change. But the Vigil will only be good for the original life. Don't they put a sticker on the unit now, to make clear when it life expires? (Instead of having to find the paperwork or start going to the INFO screens.) So people do end up with Franken-vigils with a different eras of body and control unit. I guess for the body, if still a Vigil II, for example if the filter gets wet, according to a service bulletin, the unit has to be sent in for a check. (Wasn't that way originally, but I guess they had issues so issued the bulletin.) I did recently email Vigil USA to ask if there are any other things people need to be aware of, when they have a Franken-vigil that has a Vigil II body but a Cuatro control head. Will post if I get a reply. Yeah, do read up on the Cuatro. Some things changed over the life of the Vigil II and into the II+ and Cuatro era -- like the 14 hour shutoff being introduced, and the addition of a 1000 ft arming on the flight up (making it more like a Cypres, to prevent the door-open-firings that Vigil had a couple of). Those changes can be significant for the user! I once posted a quick review of the 2+ versus the II when the former first appeared. The screen does some different flash when getting into airborne mode, and it displays freefall speed & time for 2 minutes after landing which it didn't before. The manual is also more extensive on altitude adjustments for different takeoff and landing spots, but I don't recall if behaviour is different. Anyone else think of other notable differences a user should remember? (Don't own one myself but do rig for plenty of customers with them.)
  13. I'll offer slight adjustments to some of the calculations already made: - Mars retails for $999, Cypres for $1200 at a popular online retailer - Mars life used to be 15 years, but in recent years has been changed to 15.5 years (Presumably to give that 'extra bonus' and match Cypres). Cypres is 15.5 years and doesn't need to be sent in for maintenance either. So then the Cypres costs a miniscule $13 more per year (again, ignoring time value of money and having to pay the dollars up front). - Although the issue of Warranty comes up. Yes, Cypres extends their full warranty only to those who send the units in for maintenance ($160 *2 plus a bunch of shipping costs especially if sending across borders etc.) Airtecsays: Mars says: So technically Cypres is at least as good, although in real life all the AAD companies seem to be very good about providing free fixes for units that accidentally went bad or got damaged throughout their lives. We don't really have much info yet though about how Cypres will act if you have one of the new 15.5 year units and don't send it in for maintenance. Will they be harsher than the other companies, or try to match them to maintain their good name? This uncertainty is why one poster included the Cypres maintenance costs in the Cypres vs Mars comparison, while I didn't. Now as far as this goes: Generally they have been good, so that's a positive thing for them. Although Cypres still has had a larger user base than Mars (tho' the Mars has become popular recently). I'd rather have, to make numbers up, 0 errors in 10 million jumps than 0 errors in 1 million jumps. Even if as you say, 0 is a good number in any case. I personally still trust the Cypres algorithms a little more, for despite the lack of info provided publicly for any of the AADs, they sound like they worked it out in more detail. We know the Vigil algorithms for example are a little crappier. (Only they seemed to have the "slammed car trunk" firings. The firings "with the door open in the plane near firing altitude" should be mostly solved now that the II+ and Cuatro don't go active until climbing through 1000 ft.) I'm not sure about the Mars but haven't heard anything bad. Hopefully since they are newer on the market with the M2 they thought through the algorithms better, but I haven't seen much written about them either.
  14. Well, only if one knows what to look for. Do you have some numbers to share, without me searching? The manuals don't say, "This device was first introduced on date xxxx and with serial numbers of format yyyyy starting with number zzzzz"
  15. It is great that Vigil upgrades seemingly every unit that goes in, to the Cuattro control head & new software. That brings a lot more Vigils more up to date -- There are some real differences between the old Vigil II software, and the newer stuff in the Vigil 2+ and Cuattro. (eg, the new 1000ft arming altitude on the climb up -- removing the door open restriction when not in Student mode). But it would be easy to forget that such "new Cuattros" are actually franken-Vigils, with a different main body. (Eg, Vigil II has to be sent back in if the filter gets wet for a short while, not the case with the 2+ and Cuattro.) The differences aren't important in most cases, but users and riggers should try to notice when a unit is half Vigil II and half Cuattro.