pchapman

Members
  • Content

    5,781
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by pchapman

  1. I'm no expert on the rules but: A data card is not *required* to be with a reserve. People lose them, don't pass them on to a new owner of the reserve, etc. A rigger might make a personal choice to not pack a reserve that has no known history, but that's not the norm. Under US & Canadian rules etc, the rigger inspects the reserve & decides whether it is airworthy. It would also be very rare for a reserve to have placard info worn away, like what one sometimes sees with older main canopies -- where the serial number is illegible. (That might indeed make a rigger make a personal decision not to pack such a reserve.)
  2. That is still a valid opinion. I'm still in the old school where the point of skydiving is to have fun, while the new schoolers started not only clamping down on swooping (to avoid all the canopy collision carnage, plus occasional swoop landing carnage), but now are also clamping down on doing anything fun under canopy when up high... I thought or hoped that at least when higher up, people are a little more spread out, so one could have some fun under canopy, even if as people come together in the pattern or LZ, tighter rules need to apply. I personally only have had the rule "don't do anything unpredictable under canopy" when at some multi-airplane formation event with everyone supposed to be on their best behaviour. Anyway, this all does fit with the OP trying to find out what the rules and perceptions are at different DZs.
  3. Seems a bit harsh. Spiralling is still fun. Spiralling can teach a lot. Doing spirals doesn't mean "simply hold one toggle full down for at least 3 full turns". After all, every swoop starts with some sort of a spiral entry, like brakes & single riser, double risers, harness, etc. Plenty to practice there. Swoop recoveries or emergency recoveries from dives also need a spiral entry. Practicing popped brake scenarios gives you spirals. Testing canopy stability using harness turns while brakes are set, that's another thing that can use spirals. Catching up to another canopy to do proximity (or CRW) canopy work can involve spirals. And, heck, I've done crossbraced swoop canopy 2-stack CRW spirals. (Well, I did that way high up!) Sure, mindless spirals aren't that much fun I guess once one is used to the canopy one is flying, and one is no longer just impressed by the speed of one's newer, smaller canopy. But there are plenty of things to practice that may involve steep diving turns of 180 degrees plus, or maybe 360 degrees, depending on one's personal definition of spiral or partial spirals.
  4. Sounds a bit like the Canadian PFFI system. When you get a coach or instructional rating, it is in effect provisional, and there is set of requirements to be completed in the next year (extensions possible), with some extended supervision, to fully complete the rating. E.g., Edit: Not saying it has has to be exactly like that, but just throwing the concept out there. I like to think DZ's do just fine in supervising their staff, making common sense decisions about supervision and easing into a job, including AFFI, but this does formalize some of that process.
  5. From an old manual if you are still unsure. Really, one can stuff the pilot chute in just about anywhere it fits on top of the bag. Mushroom it, or fold it neatly, whatever. Just has to be clear (not jammed in between the bag and container when it is open), and the base has to be near the corner with the pud, so the pud can pull the pin without having to move the pilot chute (so it doesn't jam when the container is closed). Something about not being pretty but it works. Not sure if it grandfathers you to pull at 2k. :-) I used to use a Racer with a pullout.
  6. Yeah it is a little hard to piece together what was happening based on imperfect memories after what sounds like a crash landing. A possible scenario: Pilot chute in tow. (Rather than pilot chute around leg, which wouldn't have left you still falling stably while 'nothing happened' for some seconds.) Cutaway & reserve procedures performed. Loss of pressure on main container allows main to come out of container as reserve deploys. Bad luck and bad timing results in a riser from the main tangling in the deploying reserve. Probably nothing to do with tension knots. Just an effectively fucked-up reserve because there's a main parachute somehow connected to it by a main riser caught up in it, pulling at it probably off center or maybe partially choking it off. Leading to a high speed impact under a spiralling, perhaps partially inflated reserve. There are certainly some youtube videos out there of such scenarios. Various related possibilities don't change the basic scenario, just how bad it might be: You might have been thrown into line twists under the reserve; the main could have been partially inflated, mostly streamered, or still caught up in its bag by its lines; the reserve canopy could be fully inflated or have part of it pulled together if the main riser wrapped itself around or through multiple lines or caught under rather than over the slider.
  7. The actual ad states, "The SST's -- both the standard and the new Racer -- are delivered with ripcords and housings as standard equipment" So there is an "SST Racer", the fancy new model, which I'm guessing just got called / renamed the "Racer" later on. So in casual conversation one could indeed probably call the Racer version of the SST a "Racer SST". It isn't quite the same, but one could describe a Micron container as a Vector III Micron or one of them Micron Vector III's.
  8. That's fun. Here are the Canadian ones from 1958. I bolded a few interesting ones. Most rules are reasonable for the era. Note you couldn't make a demo jump... on your first jump. =================== 1958 Parachute Club of Canada Basic Safety Regulations Scanned from Canpara, Jan/Feb 1985, which reprinted an early set of regulations. According to PIM 2, the Parachute Club of Canada was formed in 1956. -- Peter Chapman These regulations were Basic (safety) regulations adopted at the Annual meeting of the Parachute Club of Canada, January 2. 1958 at St. Catharines Airport, ON. 1 . Students will not be permitted to make their first parachute jump at a public gathering. 2. No one will be allowed to join the PCC or make a parachute descent while influenced by a bet or dare. 3. Parachutes will not be loaned or rented to unqualified or unknown persons for the purposes of making a parachute descent. 4. No member shall make or attempt to make a parachute descent while under the influence of any drug or intoxicating beverage. 5. No member shall make or attempt to make a parachute descent from the seat of an aircraft wherein is installed a control column or wheel unless said control column or wheel is removed. 6. Training parachute descents shall not be made when the surface wind velocity is in excess of 18 mph (eighteen). These restrictions will not apply when descent is made into water. 7. During training jumps, parachutists must have their equipment and parachute checked by another PCC member. 8. No parachutist shall make or attempt to make a parachute descent without carrying both a main and reserve parachute, on one harness. 9. Clothing, footwear, and headgear for the intended jump must be of a kind and make approved by the PCC. The only exception to this rule being where extenuating circumstances may prohibit use of such equipment 10. Flotation seat must be worn, and a boat in attendance where water is the intended or even possible landing area. 11. No parachutist shall make or attempt to make a parachute descent with equipment which is deemed unserviceable by the PCC for the intended jump. 12. All parachutes, both main and reserve, must be packed by a person considered qualified by the PCC. 13. Parachute descents shall not be made with the use of bat‑wings or similar devices. 14. Parachutists will not descend or plan to descend into an area where such a descent may be deemed to be a public hazard. 15 Parachute descents shall not be made from aircraft in close formation. 16. Hesitators, or similar devices, shall not be used except for specific and premeditated reasons, as well as with the knowledge of the parachutist. 17. Parachutists must not jump with chutes that have not been packed within the previous two months. 18. All parachute descents must be planned to be open by at least 2,000' and that the time to ground to be more than 12 seconds. It is generally recommended that parachute descents be planned with a higher safety factor, more so for the student. 19. No test or experimental type parachute descent is to be made with Club equipment unless authorized by the recognized leader of the group, 20. At all times, the rules of the Department of Transport regarding parachutes and parachute jumping must be strictly adhered to. 21. No student shall be accepted for parachute training and, or jumping unless said student has passed or reached his/her 18th and has not yet passed his, her 36th birthday, except with special qualifications'. 22. Members under 21 years of age will not be permitted to jump without a signed waiver having been received from said members' parent or guardian. 23. Prior to being accepted to parachute training, the applicant must have completed a satisfactory medical examination by Club approved medical examiner.
  9. Your approach is certainly a rules lawyering one (which can be fun!), and one that may have some debatable merit. Largely looking into whether 'apparent' violations of rules can squeeze into grey areas and not actually be violations of the rules. And thus the whole bit about them not technically asking for 'permission' but just for a waiver of one rule, just in case. FAA rules can be interpreted in many ways! Mind you, have Luke & Red Bull put forward that argument? Did they ever argue that they thought they were OK on the rules but asked the FAA to make it more clear? I don't think people here (with aviation experience) expected the BRS to save the airframe, but it doesn't seem like the plan would have been for the plane to thump in with a still partially reefed parachute. Sounds like Luke and Andy should have drunk a liter of water an hour or two before the flight, then left a pee bottle with their own name on it in the other guy's plane. "Excuse me, I'll just set the plane on autopilot (in speed brake vertical dive mode), and now just gotta fly over to the other plane for a bio break, as allowed by the FAR's."
  10. What's the saying? "8 hours, drugs to drogue?"
  11. I'll defer to you on the whole complex issue of health information privacy! But a person (or company?) must be able to do something about information they come across, rather than just being forced to be quiet due to some medical privacy rules. "Hey I know this commercial pilot, I've seen his pill bottles for stuff that isn't allowed on active flight status." or "I saw this tandem instructor smoking pot before jumping today -- can we ground him for the rest of the day?" That's probably all I can contribute to the questions in this thread.
  12. Sounds reasonable.... Unless the USPA specifically has some procedure in place where they say that all FAA records are subject to USPA review and acceptance, or they have some mechanism to charge that a USPA member has falsified the information used to obtain the legal document. (Hey, anyone can challenge the basis of a document. After all, some organization could say, "Mr. X has gained US citizenship, but we evidence suggesting he failed to tell immigration that he had been a member of a military unit in his homeland, that was involved in war crimes. This may invalidate his citizenship application." One can't respond to that simply by saying, "Yeah but his citizenship is correct according to the government." Of course one has to differentiate between disputing the actual certification (citizenship) and whether a particular organization will accept it.) So in my mind things could go either way, depending on whether the USPA properly followed their own procedures. That's where one would want to see if they need to be held accountable.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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?
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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...)
  19. 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.
  20. 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!"
  21. 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....
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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...)
  25. ... Hell, ALL of the rings are a who's who...