pchapman

I say no big deal, color the attachments if you want. Yes there is some concern about acidity of markers. At least get a brand name like Sharpie. But I've never heard of canopies falling apart or fatalities from this. Maybe it's an issue if you're trying to get 3000 jumps out of your canopy rather than just 2500, who knows. It's just not high on the list on concerns in skydiving. Although I already had thousands of jumps and was an active rigger, I coloured the attachments on one canopy of mine, as it made packing just a little faster.

> 2. Never go on a date without a chaperone. As a cartoonist wrote, on any date, pretend that Ronan Farrow is in the room too. > 7. Never go to a costume party. I figure I'd just dress up in a suit and tie. "Hey everybody, I'm dressed up as a Mexican! ... businessperson in a suit" or "Hey everybody, I'm dressed up as an Igbo tribesman from Nigeria.... at a business meeting in a city!" Just playing things safe. (As long as nobody is triggered by the implied cultural imperialism of Western style suits.)

And to be clear, discussion of the BSR rule itself seems to be going on at https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/265231-uspa-board-meeting/

I looked up what seems to be the topic of discussion, for anyone (like me) who isn't closely watching USPA board meetings: Ref: https://uspa.org/Information/News/uspa-board-meets-in-dallas Edit for sarcastic comment: Although the rule hardly seems to be a BASIC safety requirement at all. Seems to be an administrative / data collection / reporting / paperwork requirement. Fair enough if the USPA is curious about the stats. (Is it just put into the BSR's because few bother with doing other incident reports? Are incident reports supposed to be mandatory in the USPA?) 'Before your jump, make sure to have some reporting forms stuffed in your jumpsuit, to make sure you have a safe jump! '

The original poster may have better luck with some of the WWII recreation groups out there (or whatever they prefer to be called). Liberty team etc. Or someone who supplies them, like NPTC at Dunnellon Florida. Pretty silly 25 year rule though that the Daks over Normandy group have, whether it is their own or some European country's regs.

The DZ I'm at had it happen once, about 15 years ago to one of their C-182's, late 1960's vintage I believe, while taxiing out. Bent the wing and horizontal tail but was fixed up. At the time the DZ was rocking as many as 6 182's . After that the DZO did start cycling airplanes through maintenance to have the flat-bar gear legs removed and inspected. I vaguely recall x-ray inspections were planned, but on the other hand I helped with stripping paint so some Magnaflux style test must have been on the agenda. So I don't know if it was one or both or what makes sense. In any case, repetitive jump ops on grass at near max gross weights must use up a lot of fatigue life, and you never know if there's a hidden nick or scratch somewhere. I know the break point was near the fuselage, but I don't recall if it was hidden within the heavy gear 'box' structure that holds the gear leg as it goes into the fuselage. Those gear boxes get a beating too and I guess can be partially inspected when the floor boards are unscrewed or unriveted? Not sure. I'm saying all this just as a jumper, not as anyone with 182 maintenance experience.

While I reject the idea that anything free shouldn't be criticized (as one poster seemed to suggest), it is encouraging to see the rate of change on the site. Every few days there's another little tweak to make the new site work better... (Naturally some changes are easier to program than others, within the overall structure of the site.)

Default behaviour for a logged-in user should be to go to the last unread post of a thread - not start all over at the beginning again! That's what other forums do, and that's what a big advantage of being logged-in is supposed to be. I'm getting tired of having to click on the round dot or star next to a thread title to get to the new content. Especially because we now have the big giant lettering and white space in the lists of threads in a forum --- Why would we want to have to click a tiny area, almost like a web 1.0 radio button, to get to the content we want? Be a member, log in, click on the thread, and you should go to the latest un-read post. Penguins would agree with me. (Nice to see things are gradually being tweaked on the site !)

In any case, respected main stream media do take her to task if she oversimplifies things and makes erroneous statements. E.g.,what she said about US workers and minimum wages and living wages. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/24/ocasio-cortezs-misfired-facts-living-wage-minimum-wage/ (May need to turn Javascript off if one has exceeded one's free article views.) Everyone gets held accountable.

I appreciate the site runners working on improving the site, and don't want to be all negative about it. But a thread like this (or the "Welcome to the new speaker's corner" one) is useful for learning about the new features or comparing opinions on changes. Still, I'm surprised at how much was lost compared to what was gained. Hopefully some of those things were only lost 'accidentally' due to needing new code (rather than deliberately deleted), and hopefully some are on a list to be gradually added back into the coding. The Like button was definitely something people wanted. I'd also like to see country flags brought back. Helped to give an idea "where someone is coming from" regarding skydiving rules, even if one flag can't always fully represent a person's background / current location / citizenship / social affiliation etc. Jump numbers were also nice to see even if they don't tell the whole story. (And they always showed the poster's current reported experience, not the experience at the time of the post -- which can go back nearly 20 years here I guess.) Quotes could also be more clearly marked on screen, as someone suggested. More inline images is convenient, although hopefully it doesn't become like facebook with endless joke meme photos. There's always someone who posts the "Looks Good To Me" meme with the walleyed guy (divergent strabismus) ... I notice there are no blue dots in the page listing the forums. Used to be nice to see a number showing HOW MANY new posts there were in a forum. "Is the forum on fire today, or do I skip it until another day? Now I would have to memorize that there were 57,391 posts in the Swooping forum and see in a couple days how much it changed..." There's no way to show the entire thread as there used to be? Sometimes one wants to view it all as one long page. So far I'm pleased with the advertising that makes it past my ad blocker. It's well labelled, and off to the side of the content. Easily seen but not a pain in the ass distraction. So far, no flashing, moving crap of the type that makes people hate ads. The messages page has an issue like the white space one: It used to show many many lines of message headers. Great for skimming over old messages. But now, even on a 24" monitor, it shows FOUR message headers at one time. That's all for now.

Ouch, so much white space. Did they buy shares in scroll wheel manufacturers? The old school site was good because it was information dense and one could see a lot of topics and posts at once. At least it is better on a phone -- lines wrap instead of being very wide and requiring the smallest possible type to avoid scrolling left and right. Making the site phone-friendly would have been one of their goals. But on a desktop with a decent sized screen, it really wastes space. (Setting text size to 70 or 80% helps a little in getting text back to original size, but doesn't do much for the white space.) This kind of crappy design is unfortunately more and more common these days, I guess for fat fingers on small tablets. Have we lost all records of what threads and posts we've seen? One can't start where one left off; one is dumped back to post #1 on page #1 even if it is a thread one has been following while logged in. The addition of drag and drop files is a big plus of course. A couple Facebook rigging forums must have been benefiting from having easy uploads from phones. Other opinions and discoveries about the site are welcome...

Aha, I see I'm thinking about the Vector III and you're testing on an Icon. One difference is how the RSL is attached over the shoulder: The Vector has velcro over a long distance. (Like 8" or so on a tiny Vector I'm repacking, including the Collins leg.) The Icon just has the RSL in a fold-over channel, with no or minimal velcro? You can clarify on that point. So yes, you may find it a lot easier to back-load the L side cutaway cable with an Icon than Vector. That's one place the 2 rigs differ, despite Aerodyne having Skyhook tech bought from UPT. (Aerodyne and UPT have dealt with other minor aspects of staging loop rigging slightly differently too.) I should also note that you are testing the harness without anyone in it, allowing the shoulder to flex. Wearing the rig would reduce that flex. (In the air under canopy it gets messier: Although there's tension on the harness, the shoulder straps can also sit somewhat above the jumper's shoulders.) Although the flex might not matter that much either way with the the Icon where the RSL pulled free relatively easily. So far unless I see better evidence, I'll still trust that the split RSL/Collins lanyard, combined with the velcro'd RSL, will do a the job UPT intends it to do, keeping a backloaded Skyhook/RSL/Collins lanyard from pulling out the L cutaway cable. But I'm also somewhat more concerned with Icon's design. Yet in some cases all the velcro can be detrimental, such as on a Sigma with a baglocked main and collapsed drogue, where the drag may not always pull the RSL completely free. Tradeoffs. @ skytribe: Thanks for those documents. I had a similar informal statement from UPT from years earlier, but it's nice to have a printed document stating their position, more recently (2016).

Photo link not working. And not much force to remove the staging loop? Sorry, I lost your point. If the pilot chute pulls the bridle at the staging loop, it releases easily as it should (on a normal deployment). If the RSL/Skyhook system pulls the bridle at the staging loop, it releases easily as it should (on a Skyhook assisted deployment). Meanwhile the bag is in the container and can't fall out and "back load" the RSL system or pull the Collins lanyard. Or are you suggesting freebags should be much harder to pull out of the container, with much stronger staging restraints? (The rigger's seal thread on the Skyhook does a bit of that, when the deployment is started by the pilot chute. Takes some pounds of force to break it.) ----------- Back to your test: Were you able to pull the L side cutaway cable far, when pulling the bridle, with the RSL velcro still attached all across the shoulder, when pulling down and back (relative to someone wearing a rig standing up)? That would be the direction the freebag would tumble out in the rare cases where that could happen. That test seems interesting.

A template for anyone willing to reply:

I'm just playing at this, but from the logic of the bulletin it sounds like the there's no problem. "All systems that had their last functional check-up carried out over 4 years + 3 months are considered not airworthy and should not be installed in any parachute system." And then it lists those that aren't airworthy. Although technically not stated, it is clearly is supposed to mean at that point in time (13 June 2014), and because of the reason just mentioned. Not grounded forever and ever into the future for no stated reason. If it was on the list but its LAST checkup is now within 4 years + 3 mo (despite whatever lack of maintenance in the past), then it is OK. I vaguely recall there was a time when the 'check every 4 years' requirement was specified only very vaguely or in different ways in different publications. Every 4 years on the dot? 4 calendar years? I think this bulletin helped clarify that. So something serviced in '16 will be fine for any US repack coming up soon. Subject to the normal requirements to replace the battery every repack.

Seems these days that half the newbie questions are about putting big canopies into a hot little rig. Fitting 10 pounds of shit into a 5 pound bag, so to speak. The term "full fitting" comes up more than it should.... (No offence to the OP. Finding, choosing, and putting together gear is one of the tougher parts of becoming a skydiver.)

Yeah. I'd volunteer DNA if some crime happened around where I've been, but I'd like certain guarantees. It doesn't go into the cops'/government's database forever. They can check this particular crime, then destroy the DNA sample and information. Heck, maybe I'd let them check it against all other crimes, or as a bonus even give them a year into the future to catch up with testing. They get that as a freebie, to help show that I'm clean. But it's pretty hard to make sure that the actual data is completely wiped from the record -- it would take a very specific privacy protocol to ensure that.

It works. But Jump Shack / John Sherman never liked that design though. It's a matter of different design priorities. They don't like the heavy pilot chute cap, that affects how well the pilot chute launches, and making it top heavy, trying to invert the pilot chute at low speed. (Teardrop uses aluminum I recall, and the Flightline Reflex used fibreglass - maybe lighter, I'm not sure off hand.) I think Sherman also had a thing about ripcord forces, that when tightening down an external pilot chute a bunch (which is has to be, with no other flaps to cover it), it is easier to get too high a pull force with a single pin pop-pop than a two-pin. Or something like that; I don't recall his exact argument. That could also be debated, as any pop top tends to need to be tightened way up. Teardrops and Reflexes work. Although from the few Racers and Reflexes and Teardrops I've seen around over the years, certainly some needed better tightening, and the one pin ones look worse if the pack settles or the rig flexes over time.

They're not separate and unrelated, but all connected together unless pulled in a particular way to disconnect the MARD. It's messy without diagrams but until someone has a more elegant description: The reserve bag falls out, which pulls on the MARD device on the bridle, which stays connected to the RSL because the RSL is supposed to pull on the bag without disconnecting... and thus it stays connected when pulled from the other end. (Assuming the pilot chute didn't grab enough air to disconnect the MARD first.) That RSL lanyard from the MARD part pulls on the rest of the RSL system, which includes the Collins lanyard. (It's a very very rare situation, but can lead to an unwanted one sided cutaway, while the reserve bag is falling down and possibly spinning around wrapping itself in the bridle.) One then asks, will the Collins lanyard pull the cutaway cable too much, before the whole RSL system to the main riser is stretched taut? And how is the RSL held in place and with how much resistance, where it goes over the shoulder? Some rigs have the RSL sitting within a folded channel. UPT has it velcroed down. The Velcro damages stuff around it, but does hold the RSL more tightly in place, especially when pulled in shear (lengthwise instead of peeling). UPT also have the loop of the Collins lanyard (that goes around the cutaway cable) on a separate 'leg' of the RSL system -- which in effect gives more slack in the system: Pulling the MARD lanyard 6" won't therefore pull the Collins lanyard 6". Originally UPT didn't have that separate leg, but since one of the accidents they changed the design.

You seem to be lacking information about the Collins lanyard. I understand it is patented and only on modern UPT rigs or those that licensed it (eg Aerodyne), or is in some place far away not selling to the US market. The lanyard only started to show up in conjunction with the Skyhook MARD. If you had some rig without a Collins lanyard, it would be difficult for the average rigger to retrofit one. One would have to buy new shorter cutaway housings to provide a break between them, and generally redesign things. When many modern rigs (and their RSL setup) were first designed, the Collins lanyard didn't exist. RSL's existed long before the Collins lanyard started to be seen. So there are tons of rigs out there that were never built or designed for a Collins lanyard. So for the accident you mentioned, one should ask, "Why wasn't the cutaway housing tacked or clamped down properly?", rather than, "Why did the rig fail to have a Collins lanyard?".

Here's some stuff on the Nova. Just a scattershot of opinions & observations from people across the years, all taken from dropzone.com. From a file I have of interesting stuff seen on DZ. So nothing is definitive, but without a lot of searching the archives, this might help. First off, I get the impression that they were light on the front risers. Which means that it is easier to get the nose to tuck under if one front risers too aggressively. Good canopies can be fine with light fronts, but if there are issues, then the combination can be bad. =================== Billvon said it wasn't just trim: Right after the first few collapses happened, Glide Path claimed it was line trim, and sent out new line trim kits. There were collapses even with the new line sets, though. ============== Dan Preston on Novas: novas were investigated by greg yarbonet (invented the slider). he found the airfoil to be less than ideal and the design was made worse by any sewing inaccuracies. he also was involved in testing the ill fated crossfire and told us both had very similar problems. ============ Riggerrob wrote : Some Novas flew great and others were scary. I know several freefall videographers who did hondreds of jumps on Novas in the violently turbulent desert air of Southern California and never had any problems. (Dan Preston said the same in another post.) ========= Cobaltdan 2001: one of our top factory pilots, caven warren has over 1600 jumps on the smallest nova made before switching to alpha's and then cobalts. i looked into nova's after 'red' owner of flight concepts called me and asked if we were interested in resurecting the nova design. what i concluded from speaking with caven and other past nova pilots, accident reports and talking with howard adams (rigger from glide path), is that i am guessing there must have been construction flaws. what i mean by this is that the airfoil used in the nova seems to be very sensitive to particular construction tollerances. i believe this fact was not realized during construction and many nova were effectively out of required spec. there were many accidents and fatalities where a nova simply collapsed on a turn. then there were particular nova's that were flown to the limit for 1600+ jumps ie. caven warren 540 king, without incident. overall my sugestion would be to avoid an old nova, as you never know...? ============ Winsor Naugler about Nova canopy and pressurization and angle of attack June 2016 re canopy collapse fatality Germany Most canopies use a high-lift airfoil, which is generally quite stable. The NOVA used a semi-symmetric airfoil, which is more efficient but less stable. In particular, the NOVA was/is susceptible to stagnation point migration to the upper leading edge under conditions of rapid rate of change of angle of attack. Put another way, when you hit turbulence, it tends to fold up. This was most likely when setting up to land and encountering either thermals or rotors on short final. Glide Path recommended a minimum wing loading on the NOVA of 1.3 psf IIRC, to reduce the likelihood of canopy collapse on short final. Unfortunately, it did not completely eliminate this characteristic. I jumped a 170 NOVA with an exit weight of about 190#, and made the mistake of testing front riser control. I pulled down to my chin when the canopy instantly folded up and I swung forward and above it. I missed the slack lines as I dropped past the canopy, which reinflated in time for me to land uneventfully. I started about 500 feet, and was back under a good canopy at about 100 feet. I expect things to happen faster on a smaller canopy, but it was quite abrupt on the big one. ============================================

They have a flash video splash page! Pretty awesome if it is 1999 or something,but not now when most browsers are trying to avoid running it at all....

That's fine. Your goal is to be stable. Having an arch just makes it a lot easier to achieve, especially as a novice. The more experience a jumper has, the more they can manage to stay stable despite less stable or unstable body positions. Having the ability to arch more also helps when jumping with others to adjust fall rate. While that can be more of a limitation later, that isn't really much of a concern now. One can adjust fall rate with arms and legs to some degree too. (I didn't check the video though, for any fine tuning of comments.)

Nice post. A few more comments from me on similar subjects, although I have said some of it before: - MARDs: Racers could use one. Almost every company has a MARD now. It has been a slow process since UPT first introduced them in skydiving but soon most jumpers will expect one. -Riggers uncomfortable with adjustable loops: I personally think the worry is overdone. But for those who are concerned: Maybe take a digital photo of the pilot chute cap with the adjustment ends of the reserve closing loop visible, and a ruler? Or record measurements in your own log. Although it isn't absolute proof, one can say, "Well this is where the reserve loop was adjusted after I did the pull force test." How many people bounce with reserve no-pulls (and thus hard pulls) these days anyway? "Jeez, happens to all the other riggers, I don't want to be blamed whenever my Racer customers bounce." And jumpers can screw up other things on a rig you pack, like RSL or Collins lanyard routing. So there's always potential for questions about your work if your customer bounces. Hell, on some rigs if you packed with the closing loop as short as stated in the manual (which some dumb ass lawyer could point to in court), you would have 30+ pound reserve pulls all the time! At least in the old days there were more Reflexes and Teardrops around, also with field-adjustable loops, so any worry by riggers was diluted and not all directed at Jump Shack. - 2 cutters: Unlike HPC I'm not worried about doubling the failure rate. Regular AAD's are pretty reliable so doubling a practically zero number isn't a problem. It's like airplane or rocket engines: Yes, the more engines you add, the more the risk of having an engine blow up. But they put 9 engines on a Falcon 9 first stage because they think they are reliable enough. So this issue depends on whether you trust cutters or not. The loop-not-through-cutter issue shouldn't be a problem on a Racer, as the jumper can inspect that on every pin check. Unlike with most other rigs. - Reserve speedbags: Yeah they seem to work but the market would be way happier with the option for a normal bag. Parachute Labs used to offer either, but don't any more. One thing I don't like is the big loops of line they use when stowing lines on the reserve speedbag. (Photo: https://www.facebook.com/ParachuteLabs/photos/a.275708273406/10154224082248407/?type=3&theater) That has a purpose in that it balances the weight of the lines for when the speedbag is accelerated away from the rig. But big loops of line next to each other just seem to remind me of all the main bag locks that have happened over the years. At least reserves are packed neatly. - Reserve loop replacement They really need a design where one can swap loops out quickly, which includes popping the reserve PC cap off and on. Not spending an hour with needle and tacking cord pretending to be a military rigger from the '60s. - Size of company Indeed a concern. Will anyone step up and take over when John and Nancy retire? I feel they need some entrepreneur who is willing to make a lot of changes, in design, marketing, and general optics, if the brand is to survive in the long term.

You're right about the retraction. CNN on Dec 18: (A source which perhaps you'll accept today.) So yes the judge did revise / walk back / recant or whatever words one wants to use. Not sure why billvon didn't acknowledge that about a major part of the quote. The judge did indeed 'tear Flynn a new one' as Bill suggested, but later admitted he had something about the time line off. Still, the condemnation of Flynn in general stands, and I guess he will go to jail.