pchapman

Members
  • Content

    5,665
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by pchapman


  1. 24 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

    Why was talking with the manufacturer not the first thing you did?

    To educate oneself more and try to understand the source of the issues better, to be a better informed consumer, before discussing it with the manufacturer?

    To piss off those who cry "Won't somebody think of the children?", I mean "Why didn't you contact the manufacturer first?" ?

    • Like 1

  2. A tight yoke & shoulder area on the rig could make it harder to move your shoulder blade area back, which in turn restricts how easily one can reach in behind one's back.

    But that's just guessing so getting a buddy to watch & record pulls on the ground is clearly the way to go.

    • Like 1

  3. I don't expect riggers to start adding Collins lanyards. I'm wondering if some companies will add Collins lanyards to their MARD rigs.

    The rigs with MARDs that didn't have or license the Skyhook have always been without the safety feature of the Collins lanyard.
    (Although it also adds complexities that in rare cases add to the danger, the issue of 'back loading causing a partial cutaway if the reserve bag falls out'.)

    Not having a Collins lanyard didn't stop companies from marketing their MARDs, or indeed even RSLs in general.


    Some might say that riser breakage issues are not a serious problem nowadays with reinforced mini risers and better understanding of packing zero P canopies. Or a company might have an RSL that is less susceptible to activating the reserve in case of riser breakage, by placing the RSL ring lower down on the riser compared to the old days. (E.g. Mirage says in their manual that if using their TRAP MARD, to always use Mirage main risers that are built that way.)

    So will they choose to reconfigure their rigs for Collins lanyards (and have the RSL on the appropriate side for that)?  Will be interesting to see where the industry goes with it.
     


  4. I'm also a jumper familiar with F-111 style 7 cells.  I'll give a stab at the issue of reserve flaring, without being any kind of expert:

    Reserves tend to not have a lot of energy to convert into a long duration flare, which is both because they are high drag compared to modern main canopies, and may fly flatter than more ground hungry canopies.

    (Earlier reserves like the original Ravens, perhaps the most popular of the late 1980s, are especially flat trimmed and if at higher loadings,  tend to lack much flare power, and have high stall points on the toggles. But you don't see them around much any more.)

    I have seen a jumper on his first reserve ride, who wasn't familiar with 7 cell F-111, have a terrible landing. On a small modern reserve like a PD126, he started to feed in his flare gradually and progressively, from higher up, as one might do while casually planing out a main. He ran out of airspeed and flare power while still some ways from the ground and thumped in, only avoiding injury by landing in muddy ground. 

    That being said, it isn't like all the jumpers trained in the last decades under ZP student canopies are all smashing in when they first land a small reserve. Even a ZP student canopy, at typical low wing loadings, is going to need a shorter sharper flare than one will use later in one's skydiving career.

    One does want to think about one's reserve flare & hopefully practice it higher up. A shorter, sharper flare, started closer to the ground, will be what is needed. It can still be so-called 2-stage to evaluate how it is going and finish it off, but the total duration of the flare isn't going to be very long!

    (Would I go as far as Riggerrob saying a reserve is similar to a Sabre 1 of similar size?      Hmm, I don't think I'd go that far. I think my Sabre 1 135 does plane out way better than a PD reserve of similar size. But still, I see the point:  As long as you treat the reserve like a canopy that isn't by modern standards a ground hungry super-swooper, and start the flare closer to the ground and quicker, that will help.)
     

    PD has some useful info in their documents on their canopies' flight characteristics. A couple relevant quotes:

    For the PD Reserve:

    Quote

    Many people will find it easier to land a zero-p main than a canopy of the same size made from
    “F-111” type fabric.  Most zero-p main canopies can create more lift during the flare than an “F-111” canopy, and
    a zero-p main may be more forgiving if you don’t time your flare correctly. Smaller canopies generally require
    more skill to land than larger ones, so the difference between landing a small zero-p main and landing a small
    “F-111” reserve will be even more noticeable than the differences between larger ones.

    For the PD Optimum, which is supposed to be easier to land:

    Quote

    The canopy responds immediately to proper flare input, providing ample feedback to the jumper.
    The “sweet spot” in the flare is easy to find, starting around mid stroke, and is well above the stall
    point. A properly timed flaring will cause the Optimum to plane out easily, better than other
    reserves and similar to many main canopies.


    With the long control range and powerful response, it is relatively easy to land well, with timing of
    the input being less critical than for other reserve parachutes of similar size.

    However, these great
    landings are not automatic.  You must have the skill and technique that is appropriate for the
    Optimum size you have selected. Any small canopy will have a high descent rate on final, so
    flaring must be timed well. Regardless of how great the flare potential is with the Optimum, a hard
    landing will be the likely result from a poorly timed flare.

     

    • Like 1

  5. 9 hours ago, nwt said:

    I use the VOG audible as my primary. It's different from most audibles in that it speaks your altitude to you in increments. So you're always altitude aware without having to think about it, and if it quits working you'll notice. I recommend it highly.

    Good point. And to clarify, the real point is that it doesn't just make noise when you're supposed to break off, but is saying things all the way down. That's why one would notice early if there's a problem with it. 

    • Like 1

  6. 1. In the old days, nobody worried about exactly what altitude to make turns at.  Guidelines on downwind / base / final turns are just rough numbers to help people get used to what is reasonable. And always make your turns to conform to other parachute traffic, and by your actual flightpath over the ground, with the aim of getting into the landing zone. Never robotically make a turn just because your altimeter says a particular number.

     200 to 400 feet is fine for turning final and over time you'll get a visual feel for whether you are on the low or high end, and get a feel for what works for you.

    That being said, most jumpers have gone digital and many also have audible alarms for under canopy altitude checkpoints. That's for regular folks too, and not just competition canopy pilots.

    2. Used to looking at your wrist for altitude? Great! That's what you are supposed to do.  An audible altimeter is supposed to be an aid only, not your primary way of deciding when to deploy. 

    That being said, people do get very used to relying on their audibles to signal breakoff and pull altitudes. That's just the way it is, but people should still be using their eyes and altimeters to help confirm their altitudes, even if much of the time their eyes are focused on the formation work they are doing.

    3. A good digital alti to get?  Sorry I can't help, I'm old school....

     


  7. Cypres has had bulletins and recalls too. Yet Vigil had quite a few more bulletins and issues. But bulletins have been pretty much non existent for quite a few years.

    Cypres still seems to have the best firing logic and algorithms, based on the little info that's out there. Vigil's were a little simplistic based on info that came out during some of the incidents. Both companies have been arrogant about their capabilities, although both provide great user service. 

    But in any case, both have performed very well in recent years in practice.

    I personally still trust Cypres a little more, but none of the big 3 brands now are frowned on.


  8. I tried what I guess are some skateboard shoes (DC's) but don't like them --- Seemed to have very little padding to absorb any vertical shock. Just the harder rubber outer sole & an insole. Maybe that's something about keeping feet close to the skateboard without thick shock absorption?  So running out a landing on hard ground.

    Maybe someone with more experience with either skate shoes or using them in skydiving can comment.

    A bunch of people do use them, but didn't work for me. Maybe I'm just more sensitive to that. Running shoes with flatter soles and no big chunky treads, that worked for me for sliding in, both for Sigma tandems and for swoops.

    • Like 1

  9. 4 hours ago, tstar said:

    Stupid idea??  What am I missing??

     

    Yeah not very practical. It just gets complex.   (Just like this reply did for me...)

    In theory if there were a DZ with tons of funding (eg military) you could be lent a reserve canopy set up to use as a main. "You have a Smart 150 in your rig? Well, we have a PD 143 set up here, that would at least be similar."  There would be complexities because a reserve doesn't normally have the deployment bag attached. (So you need a specially built reserve, or static lining the jump, or removable deployment system, or someone else chasing the d-bag.)

    Sometimes there are big boogies where manufacturers bring reserves set up to be tried out as mains, but then you need to be around such a big skydiving event.

    But if you want to actually cut away from a parachute, then you need a 3rd canopy, a reserve, on the system. You can have the reserve to test in its proper place on your back -- which makes putting a real reserve on your belly more complex, especially to have it fully legal. Or you could have the reserve to test on you belly, which keeps your 'last reserve' in your rig as normal, but then the deployment for the test canopy won't be like a real reserve.

    Either way, having 3 canopies makes the gear and handles and procedures and crap that your wearing more complex and less suited to a newbie. Maybe more dangerous than a real cutaway after a mal!

    (There was even a World Champion doing a stunt jump for a commercial about 25 years ago, with 3 canopies, who screwed up the order he pulled stuff and died.  An unusual case but 3 canopies does get complex.)

    And even if you set up everything to cutaway to a reserve to test flying it, there won't be nearly the same stress level as if you were having an actual malfunction. So then ideally you'd at least do something like pop one toggle on the main to get yourself spinning around before cutting away.

    Reserves do fly a little different than the ZP canopies people are used to today. A small F-111 style canopy will tend to have a shorter, sharper flare motion, not a long gradual flare motion. It used to be that people were used to F-111 style canopies from their student days, but now they don't get that. So I do get a little concerned about newer jumpers these days knowing how to properly flare their reserve. At least people learn that they should do practice flares under their reserve when actually flying it after a malfunction.

    All in all, it gets complex. So in the sport it is considered reasonable to just spend one's time practicing on the ground. Hanging harnesses are good, handle checks on all jumps are good. And you don't buy a reserve that is way smaller than what you are used to jumping as a main.

     

     

     

    • Like 2

  10. On 2/12/2021 at 9:00 PM, 20kN said:

     Changing the wingloading absolutely does change the glide ratio. If you increase the loading high enough, there comes a point where the canopy becomes overloaded and it's vertical decent rate increases substantially with little increase in horizontal speed. This is very apparent in XRW where canopy pilots will hook wingsuiters on their feet and suspend their weight, after which their canopy falls out of the sky with no noticeable increase in forward speed.

    You're also adding the drag of the wingsuiter (at what body position?), and it is way down low on the whole canopy & pilot system, which also tends to angle the canopy more nose down. So I think that's a different situation overall; it is about more than just more weight   There are unmanned military canopy systems that fly just fine at wing loadings of 5 or 10 without dropping out of the sky.

    "And now back to your regularly scheduled novice wing loading arguments."


  11. On 2/12/2021 at 9:00 PM, 20kN said:

     Changing the wingloading absolutely does change the glide ratio. If you increase the loading high enough, there comes a point where the canopy becomes overloaded and it's vertical decent rate increases substantially with little increase in horizontal speed. This is very apparent in XRW where canopy pilots will hook wingsuiters on their feet and suspend their weight, after which their canopy falls out of the sky with no noticeable increase in forward speed.

    You're also adding the drag of the wingsuiter (at what body position?), and it is way down low on the whole canopy & pilot system, which also tends to angle the canopy more nose down. So I think that's a different situation overall; it is about more than just more weight   There are unmanned military canopy systems that fly just fine at wing loadings of 5 or 10 without dropping out of the sky.

    "And now back to your regularly scheduled novice wing loading arguments."


  12. On 2/10/2021 at 8:02 PM, brenthutch said:

    Or maybe it was because the first time they hit a roadblock in their career they chalked it up to racism and gave up.  Powell and others persevered and made it to the top.  That is why the concepts of “white privilege” and “systemic racism” are so pernicious.  It gives an excuse for failure.  It makes failure easy. Instead of one looking at one’s  own opportunities for growth they blame it on a nameless faceless “system”.

    That's almost troll like over-simplicity, typical right wing thinking that I see so often.  "Let's never talk about racism because it could be taken as an excuse, and never talk about the USA's failures because then it makes us sound 100% evil and weak, let's never talk about...[whatever]"

    Something can exist without being the cause of 100% of all effects. Many factors can affect how things happen. You might as well say, "Let's never talk about workers being sick because then workers can blame any issue they have at work on being sick. It gives an excuse for failure".  Sure, someone can be silly and can blame all of their problems on X,Y, or Z, but that doesn't mean X, Y, and Z don't actually exist.

     

    On 2/10/2021 at 8:02 PM, brenthutch said:

    If systemic racism was a real thing, I doubt we would have a black senator from the home of the confederacy.

    Yup, troll... on the level of  "If the Jewish Holocaust were real, why are there still Jews around?"

     

     


  13. You've had a bunch of crap here Brent but I do find one of your comparisons more interesting:

    North Carolina (apparently locked down) vs. Tennessee (apparently not locked down)

    I don't know the actual lockdown conditions; I'm just taking it as you presented it.

    Tennessee did have a higher peak than NC --  the last big peak for both of them being early in January (presumably from xmas holidays), but Tennessee has indeed brought the cases down by a greater fraction, AND has a slightly lower case load now.

    (I won't show all the numbers but the two states are #9 and #15 on the list at the moment using Johns Hopkins 7 day average case loads, viewed at this news site: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/covid-19-in-the-u-s-how-do-canada-s-provinces-rank-against-american-states-1.5051033)

    So yes Brent -- NC vs. Tennessee is a valid situation to ponder.  

    Both states have a somewhat similar rural/urban population (I looked online), and they are neighboring east-west (which gets rid of some of the 'very different climate' issues with other comparisons), but other details are unknown to me.

    Also remember that us non-right-wingers do have plenty of issues with lockdowns too, as there are so many variations of both lockdowns and non-lockdowns restrictions and actual behaviour. (E.g., "Why can a giant box store selling some food stay open when a small store that doesn't, has to stay closed?"  or  "Why are ski slopes closed here but not elsewhere - how bad is the risk outdoors even given that one has to share chairlifts to some extent?"  ... with the usual caveats about all indoor places restricting capacity / distancing / not having people lounging around indoors for long periods. )

     

     

     


  14. 2 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

    it's a huge waste of resources that are better spent elsewhere, like actually contributing to safety. 

    Yeah that's the quick answer.

    Especially at a high level, the fundamental question of "what is a license for?" gets even bigger than it is at other levels.

    Would the E license actually be useful in selecting people for something?

    (e.g, "You want on this 40 way head down? Oh, you have an E license, great, you're practically automatically selected."  That's unlikely to work when skills get so specialized at higher levels.)

    At lower levels, licenses can be more useful for selecting people. (e.g., "C license or higher for this very tight landing area")

    Is it about being an expert in at least one thing? Or a broad range of stuff?  (e.g., fulfilling at least 10 out of a possible 20 qualifications)

    Or is it just a sort of a big scavenger hunt for bragging rights?

    (e.g, "You were world champion in a freefly team? Haha, but you never did a wingsuit jump in your life so you can't qualify as an Expert. I'm an Expert because I've done a bunch of different things including my night CRW water jump using oxygen equipment with gear I rigged myself!")

     

    Canada's CSPA used to have an E license until maybe 25 years ago before it was discontinued. While it did cover some useful and broad ranges of experience (like instructing, rigging, being in competitions, and the important-in-the-old-days disciplines of RW and accuracy), it was a bit of a scavenger hunt thing (e.g, 5 water landings), so only a dozen or so people ever got them. They can keep the license but otherwise the license no longer exists.

    • Like 1

  15. I’ll join in on the pedantry:

     

    I accept that people say things like “1.5 to 1” or write “1.5:1”.   Yes we understand what they mean (so their language has worked), but it is a messy way to state things and shouldn’t be encouraged in formal use.

     

    It is entirely redundant to say something like “a wing loading of 1.5 to 1” when one could just say “a wing loading of 1.5”. Either way, units are missing and we assume that one is using US standards.

     

    It isn’t a true ratio of the same units on both sides of the equation -- you aren’t comparing square feet of one thing to square feet of another thing.  The units are different, pounds vs. square feet.

     

    Using a ratio in this situation is as dumb as saying that you inflated your car tires to “32:1”.

    • Like 1

  16. 6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

    Lockdown California daily COVID cases Feb 4 = 14681

    Unlocked Florida daily COVID cases Feb 4 = 7711

    After accounting for the difference in population, locked down California (D) is still not doing as well as  unlocked Florida (R)

    And that is why I am talking the kids to Disney World next month and not Disneyland.

     

    "Better pick the right day of the week, and hope you get lucky with the statistics"

    Because I'm seeing  7 day average cases per million, as of Feb 4,  of 430 for Florida, and 394 for California.   

    (California = better)

    But yes the 1 day figures are 359 for Florida and 371 for California.      (California = worse)

    On the other, hand go back 2 days, and you get  490 for Florida on the 2nd of Feb and 465 for California.      (California = better)

    I think the 7 day averages are better than the daily numbers that bounce around a lot.

    I'd say the two states are doing similarly, with a slight edge for California.

    (My source was a Canadian news source that used this data: "U.S. data is collected daily from the COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University. ")

    I haven't been active in this thread but just wanted to do one of those checks, where you see whether the "other side's" numbers are bullshit or not. Yours aren't a lie, but aren't the best choice, so turn out to be somewhat deceptive. Perhaps inadvertently; but most of us know by know that 7 day averages are generally better measure of trends.

     

    Edit: I haven't looked into other factors like length of lockdowns, prior peak case loads (California did have it worse), etc.

     


  17. There are so many different factors involved, it gets confusing and I don't know the answers either.

    Some variations:

    1.  RiggerLee mentioned, "In terms of toggle pressure nose down means lighter toggles and flatter canopies heavier pressure."
    I can't say how it is in general, but I recall one counter example. Have an old, large F-111 canopy (Titan 265) that I used to use for accuracy. It had high toggle pressure. I added an extra rapide link at each front riser (and even played with using 2 extras), so the canopy trimmed flatter and flew slower. The toggle pressure in turn went DOWN and was more pleasant to work in deep brakes.

    2. Sometimes comparing a steep and shallow trimmed canopy is confounded by different styles and sizes of canopy. For example, one doesn't normally get to compare a (non-existent) Katana 280 against a Navigator 280. And is one comparing how much force it takes to pull a front riser down half an inch, or is one thinking of the final effect of pulling a front riser down?  After all, even if a small and large canopy have the exact same front riser forces, you might think, "Ugh, this big canopy is a boat, I'm hauling down the front riser and almost nothing is happening", while on the small canopy you whip nearly instantly into a sharp diving turn and even if you need a solid pull, you only need to do it for a second.


  18. Interesting stuff on the website about the whole issue of 28,000' vs 30,000' and current rules for aircraft. Plus about bringing all the training & gear in house rather than organized by another group as it was years ago.

    @michaelmullins What is your take on the foreigners using TSO gear, when it comes to gear modifications? You're being strict about that issue, which most places don't.

    What is your understanding of a situation like this:  I for example am a Canadian  living in Canada. I jump a rig with harness and reserve that were US made with a TSO. The rig, however, has had rigger modifications to it, legal in Canada, but not done in accordance with the TSO or by FAA riggers. That would invalidate the TSO.  That then makes it legal for me to jump in the US, with a non-FAA rigger's pack job? 

    Does your interpretation agree?

    Indeed, I tell people that if they ever have a problem with a CSPA pack job in the USA, just deface the orange TSO warning label. Voila, no longer a TSOd rig.  :-)

     


  19. I did watch Scott & Bailey. The two women were compelling main characters, although especially in the middle seasons, it was too much of a soap opera, with them always having to deal with some family crisis or something, outside of the detective work.

    If one liked Silk, one should also look for the slightly earlier "North Square", that dealt with a chamber of criminal lawyers, most trying to climb over the others to greater success, while also dealing with their cases.  The show (just 1 season I think) had the same writer and a couple of the same actors.

     


  20. Good beverage?  For a Canadian, a Timmy's coffee box works. Less competition in the morning than with cases of beer around the campfire.

    Welcome at other DZs?  Around where I am, southern Ontario, people might trash talk or slight other DZ's from time to time ('They're too small / too big & impersonal / too casual / too uptight / not well organized' or whatever) , but that's about the overall setup, not the jumpers. Jumpers themselves are welcome all over. So it is common enough for a jumper to be from one DZ but visit friends at another, and then go to a special event at a third, and be welcomed at all.


  21. There's quite a variety out there. I'll include 'mysteries with private investigators' here too, not just ones with police.

    Season long story arc shows allow better story telling, and get all the attention these days for being quality tv, but I have tended to stick to the 'one set of crimes' per episode shows, so it is the latter that I mention here.

    British crime shows can also be ones that try to be all modern and super gritty (with the nastiest sexual crimes & worst looking dead bodies), or the ones which try to be more genteel, including the ones that only seem to involve rich people doing each other in while showcasing all the big country mansions of England -- whether in modern times or period pieces from bygone ages, and so on. 

     

    Vera is a really good show I'd recommend. Plenty of seasons. Still ongoing. Good leading character. One crime per show. Not trying to be super gritty but also staying modern.

    Father Brown  is indeed good. Lighthearted 50s (?) period piece, but engaging, with a good lead character.

    Midsomer Murders is a little slow paced but decent light entertainment and popular for many seasons. Not gritty, although they do have their bizarre murders to add variety. All small town England, lots of old buildings and big estates.

    Lewis was good, finished up a few years ago, and was a bit like Midsomer, but I liked it for being a little tighter on the pacing and set in Oxford.

    Endeavour is good - someone playing the young Inspector Morse, a current show set back in the 60s. It's not just about the murders, but also his life, so there's a bit more of the soap opera compared to shows that don't deal with the characters' lives as much.

    A couple classics from around the 90s are Inspector Morse, and A Touch of Frost.  Typical British shows with good quality, as they only did a small number of shows each of their many seasons.

    Prime Suspect. Not a lot of shows of the latter, more like specials spread out over many years, but the shows are very well done. Helen Mirren is indeed a good lead.

    There were plenty of shows from the 80s that took 3 or 4 episodes to finish one crime, and it sometimes seemed like one had to spend an hour learning all the relationships between people before anyone even died. "Somebody PLEASE get murdered and get the investigation started!" I kept thinking.

    (PD James' Dalgliesh was like that, decent but only if one could stand how long things took. Pacing has definitely picked up over the decades, although the old long shows were able to go into more detail about characters. Campion is also older and slow paced.)

    The actor in the latter, Peter Davison, was also in the lesser known police detective show, The Last Detective, in the 2000s. Decent investigations with a bit of lighthearted character background added in.

    A couple shows I didn't like so much are the recent Queens of Mystery and Agatha Raisin. They're in the category of quirky private investigators, and while some were fun, some got too silly.

    Many of the  Agatha Christie's Miss Marple (2000s roughly) were good, but sometimes overly long.

    Agatha Christie's Poirot  was very enjoyable, the one with David Suchet's take on the main character. One of those very engaging quirky characters that makes the watching fun.  Earlier seasons were more light hearted, lighter comedic aspects with a bigger cast of characters, while the later seasons were more serious, leaving aside the minor characters.

    Slightly odd ones with more bizzare plots would be the well liked Luther, or Wire in the Blood ... but it's been a while since I saw them. More gritty, and more likely to deal with some super-genius serial killer over multiple episodes if I recall correctly. Touching Evil  had the same lead actor as Wire in the Blood and I think was more straight forward but still gritty.

    The older DCI Banks  was watchable but sometimes the lead character did dumb things and was just generally a little too simplistically angry, although the show later improved. 

    While I watched all the regular Law & Order shows from the US, the Law & Order UK show (that ended some years back) wasn't nearly as good.  Decent at times, but a bit too much trying to be over dramatically emotionally caught up with the crimes -- reminding my of the Simpson's meme, "Won't somebody please think of the children!".

    I'll mention one great show in a slightly different category:  Babylon from 2014 or so. t was pretty much a mini series of 8 or so episodes, not a police procedural, but more about the politics and back stabbing at a London police HQ, with various police operations thrown in.  I don't know others' tastes, but I found it super intense, fast paced, and absorbing, something the best British political shows are good at. Reminded me a bit of the way the US movie L.A. Confidential had a lot of different stuff going on at once.

    There are a whole bunch more out there, especially older stuff, but that's enough.

    Don't know what's on what channel, or where to find older shows now, as I have torrented lots of stuff.  Sometimes funny having a huge flat screen TV yet sometimes be watching 404 line 4:3 aspect ratio shows from the 80s...


  22. Nice comparison.

    To transcribe a few of the numbers as examples:

    For 135's:

    Sabre 2  2002      Intermediate 128 lbs     Expert 176 lbs         Max 216 lbs

    Sabre 2  2002      Intermediate 149 lbs     Expert 216 lbs         Max 230 lbs

    Sabre 3  2020      Intermediate 149 lbs     Expert 236 lbs         Max 250 lbs                

    FWIW I checked archive.org for PD's 2006 page on the original Sabre   ("Sabre 1") which was a slightly less advanced canopy, and indeed had weight ratings typically but not always slightly less than what the Sabre 2 started with.

    Sabre 1  2006      Intermediate 128 lbs     Expert 162 lbs         Max 203 lbs                
     

    I do kind of shrug and just say times change, expectations about jumper skill change over the years, and how conservative a company is with its labelling, is all a factor.

    (When it comes to "following manufacturers instructions", I have seen the problem that outsiders take manufacturer's info as gospel.
    E.g., there was a workplace safety investigation in Quebec after a camera flyer died "on the job" when he hooked it low coming back from a long spot. While I don't think it was a huge problem in the end, it was awkward for the DZ when the commission was critical of the facts that were something like, "His licence is considered Intermediate. His wing loading on the main canopy is considered Expert. So why did the company allow him to go to work using unsuitable equipment not approved by the manufacturer?" )

     

     

     


  23. The photo is an example of a novice jumper, not yet quite licenced, who did OK on landing with a one armed flare -- Likely only a partial flare on the big student canopy.   She figured out on her own to get her good arm out in front (rather than behind the rear risers) so she could do a symmetrical flare.
    The brake lines might have a little less drag if pulled from between the risers instead of around the 'outside' of front and rear risers, as this pic seems to show. Although brake lines coming from the inside of the rear risers might then be more likely to scrape across one's neck or something. I haven't tried to see which method is more practical, but in any case she was able to grab both toggles and could do at least a partial flare!
    (Arm was broken on a 2 way Caravan exit where she was inside, coach outside, and the exit count somehow didn't work out so she got smacked against the door frame.)

    836818396_flyingwbrokenarmCOPY.jpg.90675bafdbd16b662532c3acc53d5ea7.jpg

    • Like 2

  24. 1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

    And I remembered it as being a Paradactyl, not a round. Good thing I didn’t volunteer that...’In 1977 there were plenty of squares; not dominant across all jumpers yet, but there were plenty. 
    Wendy P. 

    Ah, there seems to be a reason for that imperfect memory: 
    He seems to have used a Thunderbow in his 1972 El Cap bandit jump -- the first ski BASE jump  --  as opposed to the later Mount Asgard (Canadian arctic) jump for the Bond movie:

    https://www.tetongravity.com/story/ski/hot-dog-the-legacy-the-story-of-the-first-base-jump-in-ski-history