pchapman

If he had landed in my driveway, the cops would have found him out in the street...NAKED! It's a tempting idea. But it also sounds like the opening scene of a movie like A Simple Plan or No Country for Old Men... :)

How did it happen? It was before my time but I got the impression he was a big name jumper, maybe a USPA director or something, so it was a big deal when he went in?

I'm not totally skeptical about atmo flying, although its proponents do tend to over-hype it. Some of the links don't seem to show anything out of the ordinary. The evidence of lift in the photos seems like it could be the same as during tracking, or indeed from simple 'base drag' or burble in vertical belly to earth flying. And some guy leaves his harness a bit loose, big deal. However compared to tracking and vertical belly fly, the wind direction in the photos is largely aligned with the upper body, or coming at say 0 to 20 degrees below the line of the upper body. I don't know what that implies for any of the atmo arguments. As for descent rates, I'd want to see something like Protrack traces for atmo vs. tracking, whether it is for tandem or just regular jumpers. From the theoretical standpoint I don't see huge objections to the idea of atmonauti being somewhat efficient in terms of upwards force, keeping fall rates low while still providing a lot of forward speed. Some '60s US wind tunnel studies did show similar peak lift to drag ratios for two different body positions: a) a straight body position similar to tracking and b) bent forward at the waist (sometimes with lower legs aligned more with the body than the upper legs), which is atmonauti-like. (Angles of attack were varied to find the best for each condition.) In other words, one can get efficient flight (low descent rates and fast forward motion) either with a flat body position, or one with a a lot of forward bend at the waist. Both can work. (I figure largely because humans aren't really acting as unstalled airfoils --- it is all post-stall, vortex, or flat plate sort of lift, without getting into the details.) Part of the problem in the atmo argument is understanding what is being argued. Is it that atmo isn't as efficient as it is claimed (compared to tracking), or just that it is over hyped as capital-A Atmonauti? (Something like it used to be with Olav and "his" "Freeflying".)

Whether buying a Vector II is appropriate for a new skydiver also partially depends on the local jumper climate. In some areas it might be looked down on as too old in style, nobody else jumps stuff like that, and so you won't easily be able to sell it again locally after a couple seasons when you want to upgrade or downsize. In other areas, it might be perfectly normal as a starter rig, for anything other than head down. (Which is the case around where I am, although it is common to get a bridle cover added.) There are some threads on dz.com with long debates about old Vector II's, and whether it is really worth spending the money to modify them for more freefly friendliness.

Quite the hot canopy -- no stabilizers -- just like the JVX. :-) And the removable slider too. Well, I don't think there ever was one to remove. (So what does the Para Plane use for reefing?)

So does one pack a CRW tail pocket just like a BASE tail pocket?? (Single central elastic at the bottom, then figure eight the lines from top of pocket to bottom, partially overlapped. The initial central stow tucks in a slot between pocket and canopy, so that the bight doesn't interfere with the S-folds. E.g., see attached photo from the Atair Troll manual.) Or does the pouch alsso have elastics, in which case standard side-side S-folds from top to bottom would replace the figure eights? (The central elastic would still be used first.) (I jumped with some ex Plaid Jackets using canopies just with a flap sewn to the trailing edge of the canopy, with elastics since there was no covering flap to create a pouch. The lines were stowed as I just mentioned above.)

My last Frenchy sighting was at the Canadian Nationals at Skydive Burnaby in Ontario last August. He slept on the couches in the hangar. He was complaining that it was too hot to sleep during the day, yet at night people stayed up too late. Merde this, merde that. But at least he was around. Hope he had some fun too.

I didn't understand the exact nature and level of risks in different aspects of skydiving. However, "I knew the risks" in the sense of knowing that I had better keep my wits about me, and that even then there would be some risks I had little control over. All that came from previous exposure to aviation -- getting a private pilot licence a few years before, and being involved in the field of aerobatics. Pilots also have that whole ethos or frame of mind of always preparing and practicing for what might go wrong. And there's the thing about "somebody you know will die". Well, aerobatics took care of that.

"Don't pull low, unless you are..." My instructor after I got my "A" licence: "You now have a licence to kill...yourself."

Maybe there's an interesting story there for another thread, about how Stratostar's whole student progression went! The fake 5 jumps he wrote up seem reasonably well crafted although not without minor suspicious aspects. He did give himself some bad jumps. (E.g., going "Z" on jump one, assuming it was OK in those days to use that term even for static line?). But who puts "5 sec" for static line jumps? Anyway, sounds like it all worked in the end.

Mine's a mix of big F-111 with old-school fast downsizing in between for small canopies: Jumps 1-40 -------- Manta & similar Jumps 41-590 ------ bought Titan 265 (WL 0.65) Usually flew it, but also ~70 jumps on zero-p of typically WL 1.2 to 1.4 (Sabre 135, Stiletto 120, etc.) (Learned to downsize in steps, from WL 1.0 to 1.8, during jumps 185-205.) Jumps 591 - 775 --- bought Sabre 135 (WL 1.25) but only put 35 jumps on it. Mostly jumped Titan 265 & Parafoil 260. (Then with 775 jumps, but only 110 zero-p jumps, went small crossbraced:) Jumps 775-2000 -- FX 88 (WL 1.95) for 500 jumps, tandems for 450, and various other canopies Total 82 different canopy types & sizes flown.

He posts on the International Aerobatics Club e-mail list from time to time... all this explains why he seems to know something about parachutes. Has some high up aerodynamics job at Boeing if I recall his sig line correctly. I've got his email at home somewhere... Ah, screw it, just use Google ... looks like [email protected] is a good bet!

One additional factor that could have influenced jump_pilot's question in the first place: In paragliding, crossbracing ('diagonal ribs') are basically used everywhere and for everything now, making any canopy aerodynamically better, an important thing in paragliding. The only big reason not to use it is the cost. So only the simplest wings, like for students, won't be crossbraced. That's quite different than in skydiving, where crossbracing is typically only used for the canopies that 'really need it', which is only those designed for the highest wing loading and highest performance.

200 jumps, spread over 10 years, profile not filled out, wanting to downsize as much as 3 sizes from his regular canopy... there's a glutton for punishment on DZ.com! But like you said in a 2nd post, you heard that they flare nicely. Which is true, and a valid reason ... but there's a lot more to them! I do know someone who has long flown crossbraced at 1.4 loading, which is a low loading compared to most people who fly crossbraced. She doesn't do accelerated landings (diving to swoop) either. She just likes the crossbraced's quick handling, solid canopy, and the long flare duration, compared to a bigger non-crossbraced she flew previously. So one doesn't have to fly at high wing loading to enjoy a crossbraced. Unless you find one cheap, there's probably better value for money in a non-crossbraced for you. Often for downsizing people will recommend closer to an "ideal course of action": a prudent downsizing program that will prepare someone well for future downsizing and allow them to practice to be gradually more agressive with swoop landings, with some extra safety margin. But it is also possible to recommend "what you can probably get away with". This is unpopular to recommend to anyone, but fun to do if you like trying out different aerial vehicles yet don't have the time to commit to millions of jumps and buy a dozen different canopies. So this means downsizing to a canopy that someone can handle in normal situations without it scaring them excessively. It may scare them a little but they'll feel they can adequately control it. That may give them very little margin if they start trying to swoop it with little experience. Also, they may or may not handle the canopy correctly in abnormal circumstances. (eg, low altitude canopy collision avoidance; off landings in rough terrain.) But that's the pilot's choice to make. I'm offering advice that's closer to "what you can get away with" than "what's ideal". If you really aren't going to have the time to jump much, for a canopy you buy, only downsize by one step and don't go crossbraced. You can be more aggressive with canopies you borrow for a shorter time. But if you'll get the chance to be a bit more active, say at least for a summer where you're doing all this downsizing, you could downsize 2 sizes. (A number of jumps concentrated in time is better than the same number spread out through 4 seasons of jumping.) Don't waste your money buying a one-size-down downsize. Borrow that to get familiar with it, and buy 2 sizes down. So that's a 135, which you'd load 1.4 or so -- that's plenty fast and aggressive if one isn't jumping a lot, and still lots of fun. (For me, I found that fun started at 1.25 & above, to oversimplify things.) If you want faster than that (3 sizes down), at some point after some downsizing practice, borrow a canopy from friends for a few jumps. Then you're not commited and aren't forced to fly like that all the time, in all conditions. Suggestions like buying a Pilot or Sabre2 make a lot of sense. Modern characteristics, zippy, but not super ground hungry like the crossbraced canopies. Not that you couldn't go crossbraced, but it is riskier. Not a lot of point to doing so. They do fly significantly differently, so it really is best to be comfortable flying a 135 before going to a 135 crossbraced. Also, if you're at a big DZ (turbines), you might want to be more conservative. More head swivelling needed.

Here's another answer: The acronyms are airport codes in the link given. If in Canada you might look for Upper Winds at http://www.flightplanning.navcanada.ca. A readout of 2517-05 means winds at 250 degrees true (not magnetic), 17 knots, -5 C temperature. If it says 9900, that means light and variable winds (no precise measurement). Times are in UTC. Altitudes are above sea level. There are a few subtleties that usually don't apply to us: At very high altitudes they don't show the + or - sign as it is assumed to always be negative. There are special rules for over 99 knots. Full rules at http://www.flightplanning.navcanada.ca/cgi-bin/CreePage.pl?Page=weather-products&NoSession=NS_Inconnu&TypeDoc=user-guide&Langue=anglais#fdt

Armour can provide various sorts of useful protection, such as preventing abrasion, preventing penetration by sharp objects, allowing a person to slide (not snag), or by distributing a load. But when it comes to preventing sudden deceleration -- such as that from a high vertical velocity against the ground -- deceleration distance is the fundamental thing that matters, dictated by physics. A one inch thick protective layer only has that one inch in which to decelerate the person hitting the ground, even if it crushes perfectly to zero thickness with some ideal deceleration profile. So some things are unattainable with thin armor, no matter how good it is. This doesn't solve the issue of what armour could be used, but places fundamental limits on what it can achieve. For example, in paragliding they eventually realized that and went to very thick combinations of air and/or foam. Even if someone gets dropped on their ass essentially in freefall from a standing start just 2 m up (6.5 ft), the vertical impact speed will be around 6 m/s (14 fps). A well-engineered real-world foam & air bag 20 cm thick (8 in.) will be needed to prevent loads on the spine from going over 20g, above which spinal injury tends to occur. (These are very rough figures.)

Only partially on topic: Riggerrob: It puzzled many. A friend had to use his old Swift in '02 and found the brake lines misrigged. Brakes were set, but once he popped them, discovered none of the lines went through guide rings (tho' still thru the slider). It had been done that way when first assembled about 6 years before, and had gone through about 6 different riggers since then. If a rigger saw a normal canopy packed weird, he would have questioned it. But a weird canopy packed the wrong weird way wasn't as easy to spot...

Just a note: dragon2 was making a joke - witness the smileys. The article is about knives including stilettos. One doesn't have to read Dutch to understand it, although one has to be able to tolerate a lot of vowels.

Yes it is supposed to be shut down late in '08. The Schoenefeld airport outside the city will become the one main airport serving the city.

I dunno. But the clues are interesting! European style buildings with high peaked tile roofs in the background, with driving on the right. Germany sounds like a good guess given the US military hardware also in sight. Someone should recognize that distinctive old terminal (or are they hangars?) Big terminal for the day but also tight up against the city, yet there's space on the ground for a special event without airline traffic getting in the way. One airplane is a Starlifter or similar. The other looks DC-10 like, more that than a Tristar but I'm not sure. I can't even quite tell if there's a 3rd engine, but large twins simply didn't exist way back when, so I'm guessing it is a DC-10, which first flew in '70. From the attention it is getting from the crowd, it seems it's the first time anyone has seen the damn thing...

I agree with a lot of the responses about already having some background knowledge about flying the pattern, winds & weather, airspace, and aircraft & aircraft operations. There's also the "making a decision" concept that was brought up by Squirrel: You'll already have that aviation mindset of having to evaluate and react to stressful & dangerous situations. And to anticipate such situations, looking for combinations of factors that may lead to them. It's not that pilots and skydivers are special in facing dangers -- one can be killed mundanely driving a car -- but in aviation the whole decision making and human factors concept is more explicitly covered. There can also be negative aspects to already being accomplished in aviation, as it can be for those with skills in some 'extreme' sport -- for those who let it go to their head. Skills in one field aren't always the ones needed in another. The person may have a talent for learning quickly, but they have to use it and recognize what they don't know. In skydiving there are plenty of debates about the degree to which 'good awareness' transfers over from another field to skydiving. Generally being heads up and aware may not help keep one out of trouble when there are subtle skills & knowledge that are lacking. (Classic aviation examples that A1CSpooky will recognize: The respected airline captain who groundloops a taildragger he hasn't touched in 20 years, or the successful businessman who learns to fly and soon kills himself in the Mooney he bought.) Just being more comfortable in the sky in general should help. For me, it didn't hurt that I didn't just fly straight & level in a C-150, but had done some gliding and aerobatics too. I can't say that my first couple skydives weren't still stressful and a little scary. But I was able to avoid the problem that some students have with freefall stability & control, from being too stiff and nervous.

I've put together a rather long post on building escape parachutes, looking at the various designs I read about. Over the years I was curious about these devices, and all the variations that were marketed. So I thought I'd summarize the info I collected. Post if you have corrections or further info, especially on the lesser known systems. I have used only information available on the web, some of which took considerable digging. It would be interesting to contact people at the companies involved and get their retrospective view of what may well have been largely a short-lived industry. (P.S. - If anyone replies, let's keep this to the history of these devices, not whether it's all a dumb idea or not.) ================================ Building Escape Parachutes The idea of using of parachutes to escape from buildings is not new. There was daVinci in the 1400's, and Faust Vrancic in the 1500's, US patents by Americans and Austro-Hungarians in 1911, and a US patent for a South American inventor in the 1970s for example. Marketed designs, however, became common after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US. There is considerable variation in design and design philosophy, which makes the differences interesting. Much argument is possible about the degree to which such products are needed or practical, and whether the companies involved were just trying to make a quick buck or were attempting to fill a perceived need among the public. Building escape system canopy choices vary from unsteerable pull-down apex round paragliding emergency parachutes, to a pilot's round reserve, to a Rogallo paragliding emergency parachute, to a square BASE canopy. All systems use a static line deployment system, direct bagged as far as I can see. The static lines are long, to allow hooking up to something solid somewhere inside the room. Harness designs vary in the type and number of connections, and to what degree the straps are loose or integrated into a 'vest' that covers some of the holes between the straps. I could see that harnesses with a lot of loose straps could be difficult for almost-untrained people to use. More than one person commented on a poor demonstration on a popular TV show in late 2001. As dropzone.com moderator PhreeZone wrote: "The host asked the seller to have his assistant put the system on after the seller just said how quickly and easily these systems could be put on. The lady couldn't get the leg straps on and actually had to be caught from falling over trying to put it on. Then she managed to get the chest strap and the static line tangled together. The chest strap was a B-12 connecter, and when she finally got it put on (over 3 minutes) the static line was wrapped around her, under the main lift webs, through the B-12 connector and under the sleeve." Despite the large variation in design philosophy, product info from the companies tends to be sketchy or even evasive. At times there's little information about why a company believes their choices might be better than those of another company. The marketers of the products are often not those who designed and who manufacture the product, and the web sites are often very vague about these relationships. I wonder how many of the devices have actually been sold! Here are seven different designs of modern building escape parachutes: Executive Chute (a.k.a. Escapeline) The Executive Chute is a light weight system, with the canopy in a narrow backpack container. The canopy is supposed to be from an established emergency parachute company. Although the supplier was not mentioned, research shows it to be from the well known Apco paraglider company in Israel. Their paragliding-certified Mayday design is an unsteerable pull-down apex design of about 325 ft. sq. (That compares to a Phantom 22 at 315 ft. sq., but the pull-down apex makes significantly more effective use of its area in creating drag.) Although there are various dangling harness straps, there are some attempts to clarify how to put the harness on: large coloured labels are used to identify the straps, the two leg straps are tied together, the leg straps are step-in with no adjustments, and so the only connection to be made is a slip-through buckle at the chest. However, this was the system mentioned above where a person bungled the procedure to don the harness properly. The company and its head, John Rivers, gathered a lot of publicity in the months after 9/11. John was interviewed for numerous newspaper articles, and claimed "hundreds of orders on the books". He states that he was working on a parachute escape system concept in the year before 9/11, after being questioned by an insurance company executive, but until 9/11 dropped the idea both because of the lack of market and technical considerations. The original website, www.executivechute.com, is gone, but Executive Chute now runs a site at escapeline.com/parachute.htm. John Rivers is based in the midwest US, and has a background leading a powered parachute company, Destiny Aircraft, which appears to now be defunct. The video on the website of a test drop is currently not working. What kind of test it is is unclear. At least early in the design's history, the Executive Chute was criticized for having test drops only of dummies off a crane, not a person from a building. The stated descent rate of 900-1000 fpm (15-17 fps) is considered by the company to be good for getting the jumper to the ground quickly, "to avoid floating precariously on air currents". What the descent rate would actually be for this or some of the other escape chutes is not certain. Pull-down apex designs are less stable than well vented round canopies that skydivers were used to. It is still an issue of discussion in the paragliding industry just how stable the canopies will be in use. The use of long bridle lines, and the extra drag of the collapsed paraglider (not applicable to escape chutes) will reduce the tendency to oscillate. Whether or not a particular design will oscillate, and drop faster than the ideal test results indicate, is not clear. The Executive Chute is supposed to be used from no lower than 15 stories or 125 ft. Repacks are recommended every 3 to 5 years. While one early report suggested some form of vacuum packing was used, this can't now apply, as the company states that any certified parachute maintainer can do the repacks. The repack interval is particularly generous and progressive. Even in paragliding, repacks are usually recommended at least yearly. The price is $1200. This is up from a very low price of $799 at which it was marketed as late as 2006. For a business as small as escape parachutes, it will be difficult to decide on a sales price that not only covers production costs for each chute, but that of setting up the company and designing the product in the first place. H.O.P.E. The High Office Parachute System comes from Aerial Egress Inc., formed by "three of the most experienced and capable people in the parachuting industry today." One of those was Anne Helliwell, in 2001 at the Basic Research BASE company, now incorporated into Apex BASE. The H.O.P.E. was on Basic's web site, but is not on Apex's site now, nor does there appear to be any Aerial Egress web site. However there is still a phone number, which happens to match that of Apex BASE. The system is available through an independent emergency equipment supplier www.saferamerica.com, which lists three of the systems in this article. (All three are stated to be "in stock", if that is to be believed.) At that site, no information is provided on the canopy type or repacking requirements. One observer at Vertigo stated that the prototype was ready within days of 9/11. I did once see a video of Helliwell test jumping a system from a bridge, but I'm not sure whether it was over land or water. The canopy appeared to be a small pull-down apex round canopy. A well known BASE jumper wrote that the canopy was based on existing technology. Between that and the timing, it suggests that a modified paragliding emergency canopy was used, as such canopies are not in production in the BASE world. While I don't know the source of the canopy, the only American source I know of for pull-down apex rounds is Wills Wing, a hang glider company. Their emergency canopies are built for them by Free Flight Enterprises, which like the other companies is also in California and has a skydiving industry experience. The observer also suggested that the canopy was very small. If so, it was a conscious decision by Aerial Egress to provide a lightweight, inexpensive unit. While pull-down apex canopies are available in different sizes, for some applications they are built small because it is assumed that the broken hang-glider is still providing some drag area to reduce descent rate. Without that drag, the canopy will be even more high performance in terms of descent rate. The H.O.P.E.'s performance is unknown. The system is suggested for use from heights over 100 feet, or approximately 9-10 floors. Cost is $1,145. Evacuchute The Evacuchute company upgraded their web page in the last year or two (www.evacuchute.com), with more information than I've seen on any other design, so they are actively marketing their design. The Evacuchute uses a conical round canopy with meshed drive vents. The canopy is certified to TSO C23d (175 mph!), so it is stronger than the systems based on paraglider emergency parachutes, which typically are tested to around 80-90 mph maximum. The company does emphasize this choice of large, high strength, steerable canopy, rather than a light weight unsteerable pull-down apex from the paragliding world. Photos of the harness show it to be quite heavy duty, being a small variation on a pilot emergency rig. They show a video of a live jump from a building, although a small ramp is used for a little extra clearance. Even with the conical design and steering vents, it is a round canopy, so there is some initial oscillation after opening, and with the wind the jumper ends moving backwards on landing. The web site says little about what the company really is and where its experience was gained. For an address, there is only a California post office box listed. Extensive design experience is alluded to, and photos suggest manufacturing capabilities and experience with products such as ballistically deployed ultralight aircraft recovery parachutes. However, the California company can't be much more than a location for marketing and perhaps servicing of their product. Searching on the web establishes that the canopy comes from the Czech firm Stratos 07, which builds various parachute products for different area of aviation. They developed the product, the Stratos owner states, and the technology is licenced by Evacuchute. The Evacuchute system includes interesting and possibly useful accessories not found with the other designs, a helmet, hook knife, smoke-hood, and attachment bag for infants and small pets. A variant is marketed to "professional rescue workers", which has a larger carry bag that can be hooked up in front, and uses fire resistant container materials. "Coming soon" is a tandem harness attachment system for rescuing civilians, although there is no word on what will be done for a canopy. Evacuchute suggest its products be used from 140 ft or 15 stories upwards. The regular canopy is about 430 ft. sq. (which roughly corresponds to a typical "26 ft" conical round), and offers an 18 fps descent at 220 lbs. Annual repacks by the company are recommended, with porosity and strength tests every five years. The Evacuchute comes in two sizes, and costs $1499. e-vest The e-vest ("escape vest") uses a steerable, flarable Rogallo. The canopy is most likely one of the European Rogallo designs that have been certified as paraglider emergency parachutes, given that the company is Austrian and states that it has people involved who have long experience in the field of hang glider and paraglider emergency parachutes. Using the Rogallo is a very interesting compromise, that allows for a lightweight single surface canopy with some round canopy characteristics, yet still has reasonable forward speed and easy steering. Like a pull-down apex round, the relatively flat design of the Rogallo gives it a fast opening. The canopy is about 400 square feet, although that is hard to compare to either round or square canopies. The harness clearly is based on paraglider harnesses, so it is shaped to provide a sitting position (not hanging straighter as for a parachute harness), and does not suffer from a lot of straps hanging loosely. The connections are simple, for there are only two to be made: a snap connector on the belly strap connects to a combined pair of leg straps and to the snap on the other side of the belly strap. As used on many paragliding harnesses, the connector design makes it impossible to do up the belly strap yet leave the leg straps accidentally undone. A clever feature is an integrated airbag that inflates under the seat after launch, in order to cushion a bad landing. This technology is also from the paragliding world. The e-vest is marketed through www.conceptsafety.com. Live tests from buildings and other launch points are shown. They also have a slightly morbid page showing numerous hi-rise fires from around the world. The last news items on the site are from 2004. No prices are given. EscapeChute The EscapeChute was made available, although little marketed, by Precision Aerodynamics. Its page on the company's website no longer exists. Owner George Galloway made the concept available very quickly after 9/11 when the issue came up, but it was in his words simply listed on a web page without any advertising at all, "to act more like a lightning rod to measure the public scope of interest in this idea, than as a real sales tool." Galloway said he did not want to seem opportunistic. The EscapeChute was developed along with Vertigo BASE, now part of Apex BASE, and is not on the latter's site either. One model was simply the Dagger BASE canopy (that Precision has manufactured for Vertigo/Apex BASE), with Vertigo's Wizard BASE container, plus a full length deployment bag for the static line system. Eight canopy sizes were available, and it was marketed for heights of 120 ft and above. Galloway wrote in September 2001 that he was working on a static lined round canopy version as well, in his opinion more suited for the untrained. The details of the models actually marketed and not just experimented with are unclear to me. The company stated that the basic model is worn like a traditional parachute, and the deluxe model is worn like a garment (which would fill unused holes between straps). One source gave prices as starting at $1575, while another mentioned a low end price of $900, which would for cost reasons have to refer to a round canopy version. BES -- Building Escape System Brian Choppin, an active BASE jumper around 2001 in California, started the Building Escape company in the months after 9/11, but his website a www.buildingescape.com is no longer active. Mick Knutson might have been involved, since he had a web page for the BES on his own site, which was a well known BASE website at the time. I have found nothing more about the design of his system. Egress Parachute System As of late October 2001, it was reported in an interview with Nancy LaRiviere of JumpShack, that JumpShack was selling an Egress Parachute System. I have heard nothing further about this system.

Or was it "when it got too close to a skydiving plane"? Different ways of describing the incident will affect how blame appears to be apportioned.

I'd go for the DH Heron answer -- but one of those converted from the inline Gipsy engines to the flat Lycoming engines. The tightly cowled engines have a distinctive shape around the exhausts especially. The designers went for four smaller engines rather than 2 bigger engines. Then I really cheated and checked airliners.net. Looks like the paint scheme of Wright Airlines, who owned 5 of them.

Everyone's got a different way... and here's another, at a long running school in Ontario, Canada. The jumpmaster is behind the pilot, kneeling, facing sideways towards the door. #1 student is on the right side, at or just aft of the rear of the door, kneeling, facing forward. #2 and #3 students are in the back, kneeling. #4 student (if weight permits) is in the copilot position, on his butt, facing aft, keeping his legs to the side when the others exit. This is in a widebody 182 with increased gross weight from wing extensions. The instructor can see and supervise all four fairly well. Has to lean forward quite a bit to see out the door, and to keep that first student back a bit to do so. But he has good control of the #1 student he is facing, to check gear both in front and back. If needed, he can help the student's climbout with a hand at the student's side, on the harness near the hip junction. To get #4 turned around and up on his knees for the exit, the door is closed both to avoid problems if anything catches, and to reassure the student next to the open door.