pchapman

Quote

to know what I would need to do to jump at a non DZ. I thought it would be really cool to surprise my parents by "dropping" in to see them. They live in a small town of 2600 people,

I haven't dealt with this recently so it I can't guarantee every detail is right.

The main obstacle is the location, which falls under the "built up area or open air assembly of persons" rule. Such locations require a Special Flight Operations Certificate. (See Canadian Air Regs part 623) That means having a Canadian EJR or the US PRO rating. In additions to the landowner's permission, one would need that of the municipality. Plus there are other basic rules on ground crew, equipment, winds, landing area diagrams etc. All the paperwork gets faxed in to TC 2 weeks ahead of the jump for approval.

If you can find someone with a farmhouse and field away from the town, then one can do without the SFOC. There can still be the problem that if two people stand outside and look up at you, that could constitute an "open air assembly of persons", depending on Transport Canada's mood. On the other hand, the rules state "into or over" such an assembly -- so as long as one can jump & land off to the side of any crowd, one may be OK. That issue is unclear to me.

An SFOC would normally also be needed for jumps through airways, which tend to be everywhere anywhere remotely close to population centres. But there's a blanket exemption in place (from CAR 602.23 and 603.37). Then one doesn't have the EJR rules etc., but only needs simple things like the land owner's permission and radio contact with ATC that varies in detail with the exact class of airspace.

Even where there are airways, unless there's a big airport nearby, below 2200' AGL there's typically uncontrolled airspace, and no airways or radio rules to deal with.

So out in the countryside, one could just do a low jump in to a friend's place without talking to any authorities at all.

Any pilot could drop you, but if there's any compensation for the pilot in any form, one needs a commercial pilot. Typically one would rent the plane & pilot from a local DZ anyway.

Has anyone looked into what degree of hazard there might be from the use of lead in rigging? Anyone care?

The main concern, I would think, would be from shot bags full of lead pellets, where the rubbing pellets would release lead dust that would contaminate the rigging loft. Same applies to handling weights for weight vests & belts. I've build weights with steel shot (but bulkier & rusty) or switched to small plates of lead.

Some shot bags may be plastic lined, but that tends to abrade. When rigging at home, I end up just pulling books off shelves when packing weights are needed. I try to minimize shot bag use, wash my hands, and vacuum (although I'm not sure about particulate size).

While some riggers appear to use weights for better control when packing squares, in other places shot bags are only used for occasionally packing round reserves.

At least the lead seals on reserves shouldn't abrade much. But then a lot of seals get tossed into the garbage instead of being taken to the hazardous waste dump.

There might have been an article in Skydiving in the late 1980s on the subject of lead in rigging lofts. I haven't gotten around to looking into what current industrial practices are for the use of lead.

After seeing the interesting thread "instersting finds..." [sic] that dealt with some WWII Japanese parachute systems, I though I'd post about one I saw on TV.

I was intrigued because it seemed to show hip rings well before Sandy Reid's patented Flexon design.

(US patent #5277348. Rigging Innovation's site, last time I checked, incorrectly listed 5277378.)

The patent makes claims to both harness articulation with metal rings at the hip, and leg straps that terminate at those rings. The patent does acknowledge previous designs where a diagonal strap goes through a ring and continues on to the chest -- which is like this Japanese harness. I get the impression that the patent ideas are sufficiently unique because a regular skydiving harness, with rings added, would be more comfortable and flexible than the older idea of continuous webbing going around the leg and up to the chest (rings or no rings).

Attached is a low quality photo taken from TV, and a drawing off the web. The harnesses were worn by Imperial Japanese Navy pilots in WWII. The photo shows a harness only, while the graphic suggests that a seat pack parachute can be clipped on. The Allies tended to have clip-on chest packs for aircrew, but seat packs were normally built-in. The British used chest mounted release boxes in WWII, but I recall that the webbing went through loops of webbing (not rings) at the hips.

Leroy -- I did forward the photos to her - I think the web versions are fine - thanks.

Quote

Somewhere here I posted about a customer of mine having distorted rings.

Interesting! (I didn't see that post when searching before making my post, and still can't find it.)

The ring stamps were the same on the bent 2002 rig as and on a similar 2001 rig that was also jumped by heavy guys, but which has apparently undistorted rings. I haven't yet compared to newer rigs.

I'll post again down the road whenever I find out what the factory tells the owner.

A jumper at my DZ discovered that the hip rings on his Wings container were starting to get quite distorted, bent into an oval shape.

The rings have the Wichard stamp and are also marked 316L (which sounds like the grade of steel). I've seen the same markings on other Wings hip rings. I think there's no part number to distinguish it from other rings.

Since the bend had become quite sharp on one ring, the rig was taken out of service and is being sent to the manufacturer.

It's a rig from 2002, and both the original and current owner are in the 230-240 lb range.

Nobody noticed the problem -- neither the owners, other jumpers, or riggers including myself -- because the bending process was so slow and gradual over the years. Only now is there a sharp bend in one ring, and the two rings are clearly different.

Given all the variations there are in hip ring joint constructions, everyone just thought that that production run or model year had been built with oval forged rings. It's easy to see when something that's supposed to be round is oval, but it's harder to notice that something oval is a little more oval that it was 6 months ago. This is the kind of error that can slip through an inspection, where the manufacturer's intent is not known. That's a whole topic in itself.

It was odd to look at leroydb's photos as I realized the woman in the reflection is a friend. You never know when you might end up in someone's photo from some unexpected angle at an unexpected time...

I don't know what the answer should be to this question, but it may be useful to compare to other aviation activities, which happen to be heavily regulated:

In the US I believe one can get one's private pilot license for powered aircraft at 17, while one can fly solo as a student at 16. (In Canada, the student certificate can be had as early as 14.)

At what level of wetness should a BASE rig not be jumped?

We know that wet canopies are jumped regularly at Bridge Day, for example, and other threads have discussed opening characteristics for damp vs. dry canopies.

But where is the point at which it is best not to jump a dripping wet rig?

I'm asking as I'm not an experienced BASE jumper, and a couple friends at Bridge Day this year were not permitted to make second jumps because their rigs were "too wet". They had made their first BASE jumps there with gear rented from one of the major BASE companies, landed in the water near the shore, and had the rigs repacked by an experienced BASE jumper. At the gear check on the bridge, a staff member questioned the wetness, and called over a second staff member for another opinion. The jumpers were asked / told to not jump the rigs, so they stood down for the day.

I wonder if it was more the container or the canopy that was retaining excess water. A container could be wrung out a little, so to speak, but with a canopy, I'm not sure what is practical other than laying it out to dry for a while. Certainly some people at Bridge Day had their canopies spread out next to the packing area to dry, but I don't know if they were 'done for the day' or not.

Pilot: Will H. from southern Ontario
Suit: all white Prodigy

Leisure Sports Photography's pics of his landing in the top row of photos at:
[Edit: full URL deleted - doesn't work if not already viewing the site.]

See www.leisuresportsphoto.com - the people who do the Bridge Day photos every year - in the 9 to 10 am landings section, page 5 of 7.

Hope the shirts are the version without the extra joke printing on the back -- that kept me from buying one the last time I saw the shirts.

In 2003 someone (Lonnie?) organized all the Canadians they could find at Bridge Day and got a photo of about 30 of them... almost all clothed in the Canadian BASE shirts.

Skydivingmovies.com didn't seem to have any videos of Para Commanders... so I added one.

On the weekend a friend and I did a CRW 2-stack with a square and my Para Commander. He had done such stacks many years ago. The docking speed was of course a source of nervous anticipation! The attached pic shows the hit, when I'm hidden in/under the square, and the square's tips have swung forward. The square then went back to flying normally, although slightly bent, and flown in maybe 2/3 brakes. We didn't try to land the stack.

Round-square dock 2006:
http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=4976

Quote

Isn't that the one with no vertical load tapes just plain ribs?

Yup.
The DZ I'm at has a couple of its static line student rigs still with FTS or APS reserves. The canopies do look very weird and lightweight with no diagonal tapes on the ribs, although to compensate, the longitudinal bottom seams at the line attachments are heavily reinforced.

The DZ I'm at (with Cessnas and 7 Sigma rigs) seems to do just fine with coveralls for students, available in various sizes, somewhat colour coded by size. No cuffs at the bottom of the legs, so they're easy to slip on. (Perhaps the most popular is the orange one with "D.O.C. Transport" on the back.)

Whether good or bad, we've never worried about the extra 'control power' students might have with something other than a tight jump suit. That being said, we always want to pick a suit that's not excessively baggy. We happen to also have a few old RW style suits for small women, that are tight enough to help keep the speed up a little when there's a videographer.

Quote

How about tackling this from the other side and inventing a full-body airbag......

Yeah, fun idea. Perhaps something like the airbags used to drop landers on Mars. However, the numbers tend to get a little awkward.

If I got the numbers right, from 120 mph that'll take a 24 ft thick airbag if one wants a 'comfortable' landing at 20g's. (Assuming constant deceleration, ignoring rate of onset issues, etc.) That 20 g's is the range of ejection seat accelerations, although it would be easier on the body when flat and not sitting.

If one dials up the deceleration towards the limits of human tolerance without major injury (usually), lets say 50 g, one could get away with an only 9 1/2 foot thick airbag.

So it may be easier to build a giant airbag on the ground than to encapsulate the jumper in a personal inflatable airbag. If I were the engineer tasked with coming up with the design of that personal airbag, I'd probably think, hey, wouldn't it be a lot lighter and simpler just to just give this guy a parachute instead?

Racer 2000 - It was cheap because Racers aren't popular, and the seller was leaving the sport. I'm my own rigger so I have to deal with the hassle of packing it. And I sewed some mods to protect risers and main pin better.

Racer - Because it was my first rig, when Racers weren't out of style and had some of the best pin & bridle protection around. This one is relatively easy to pack since there's no AAD or freebag. (Just a round reserve.)

Northern Lite - Because it was essentially free, an old rig for accuracy.

Vector II - Because they're cheap. Lots made, but not the latest in freeflyable design. A nice spare / casual CRW / Birdman rig.

All in all a lot of hand-me-down stuff, nothing brand new among the lot.

Quote

i had no idea bladders were tested, could you point me in a right direction to look at the test results?

My recollection is the same as Piisfish. Bits and pieces of news came out over the years (scattered among a stack of paragliding magazines) as manufacturers experimented with what might work. There might have been a production model or two in the late 80s or early 90s that had some limited spanwise elements along the leading edge. Bladders tended to be associated with attempts to make very high aspect ratio paragliders. But I don't recall anything having an impact on the market.

Bladders had the problem of what to do with pressure changes with altitude.

I believe the main issue for both bladders and rigid spanwise elements was that it was harder to uncollapse the wing. A side of the wing would be more resistant to collapsing (tucking under) but if it did, the extra rigidity made it much tougher to get the wing to progressively reinflate from the center and pop back into place. It's as if the canopy were stuck in a cravate. So it is a design challenge!

There's at least one bladder and one rigid spanwise element briefly mentioned among the pictures of paragliding history & oddities at: http://www.expandingknowledge.com/Jerome/PG/History/Strange/Album.htm

My reasonably ideal cutaway was when a buddy and I entangled canopies while doing CRW, with him going through my lines. The DZ hadn't seen a lot of CRW so we were planning to show off a downplane. We never got that far but we still put on a show.

The entangled canopies didn't spin so it was an easy, low speed cutaway for us both. No handles were dropped, we landed on the DZ, and others brought back our gear before we even had a chance to go looking for it. I landed under a round so there was one less freebag to deal with than usual.

Severe haze then stopped any other loads from going up so we weren't missing any jumping. As a rigger, it cost us nothing to pack all 4 canopies back up again that afternoon. The reserve rides were even my first confirmed saves.

Quote

it had maybe 100 +/- jumps on it, and the mesh on the slider was already showing signs of wear and tear.

I was just talking to someone who got a bigger Katana at the start of this season (not sure what size) and he was also complaining about the mesh giving out.

Recently PD sent him a new slider that's slightly different. Where the mesh goes over the wide tape that forms the edges of the slider, the mesh is now sandwiched between two layers of tape. That may avoid mesh wearing at the edges, but can't do anything for the mesh that's on its own, where the slider is supposed to be porous. The jumper is thinking he may just have to live with the mesh wearing out quickly.

Quote

Why would they be USPA - THEY'RE IN SPAIN. Talk to the Spanish version of the FAA.

While it would be quite unusual, it might not be impossible. For example, at least one Canadian DZ is a USPA not CSPA affiliated school. (Yet there is a CSPA affiliated club on site, so that they can have people get Canadian ratings etc., so as not to isolate their members.) Still, the USPA may not be all that familiar with local regulations in other countries...

I'd like to hear the answer to chaoskitty's question!

Another fairly obvious but unanswered issue is why the center puller didn't track off high, before dumping. That would remove the safety issue of pulling in place, and leave only the issue of how the team works together given that one person is wary of off-landings.

The center puller might only have noticed the bad spot late in the dive, or was trying to stick to the plan for the working part of the dive, before getting a little extra deployment altitude for himself while others were tracking.

Quote

can anyone give me some history on jim handbury?

I had long wondered what the story was with his accident. After some digging through the NTSB reports I found # LAX86FA183, copied below. It can't be easy to do solo test drops out of a 150... Still a sad end for a pioneer.

========

Accident occurred Monday, April 21, 1986 in BERMUDA DUNES, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/25/1988
Aircraft: CESSNA 150B, registration: N1118Y
Injuries: 1 Fatal.

THE PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT FLIGHT WAS TO DOCUMENT THROUGH THE USE OF VIDEOTAPE THE DEPLOYMENT & TRAJECTORY OF A SPECIALITY PARACHUTE WHICH WAS CONNECTED TO A BALLAST BAG. THE PLT, WHO WAS THE DESIGNER OF THE DEVICE, UTILIZED HIS EXPERIMENTAL CATEGORY ACFT FOR THE LAUNCH. AT THE PREARRANGED ALTITUDE OF 3000 FT AGL, THE DEVICE EXITED OUT OF THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ACFT. THE ACFT'S DOOR HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY REMOVED, & WHEN THE DEVICE LEFT THE ACFT THE BALLAST BAG'S ATTACHMENT CORD BECAME ENTANGLED WITH THE LEFT LANDING GEAR WHEEL RIM ASSEMBLY. THE PARACHUTE, WHICH REMAINED ATTACHED TO THE BAG, STREAMERED BEHIND THE ACFT. THE ACFT STALLED, PITCHED DOWNWARD & DESCENDED INTO TERRAIN WHILE IN A VERTICAL ATTITUDE. THE PLT BAILED OUT OF THE ACFT AT ABOUT 400 FT AGL. HIS PERSONAL PARACHUTE DID NOT DEPLOY. THE PLT WAS FOUND TO HAVE A 0.10 LEVEL OF ETHYL ALCOHOL IN HIS BLOOD.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
PLANNING/DECISION..IMPROPER..PILOT IN COMMAND
IMPAIRMENT(ALCOHOL)..PILOT IN COMMAND
PROCEDURE INADEQUATE..PILOT IN COMMAND
LOAD JETTISON..NOT ATTAINED..PILOT IN COMMAND
LANDING GEAR..FOREIGN OBJECT

Quote

What kind of marker would one use to write on the pilot chute bridle? Any chance of the chemicals in the ink hurting the bridle?

There was a thread on that, maybe a couple years back. Technically it sounded like markers of various types could cause damage, and only specialty milspec (or something) markers were guaranteed safe.

On the other hand, in practice plenty of bridles get marked, nobody has heard of failures, and few worry about the type of ink. Probably pick a permanent marker to avoid running ink if the rig gets wet or even just damp.

One sees the occasional old 'starter rig' that's been kicking around the DZ forever and has 3 or 4 names on the bridle...

Quote

if the top jumper chopped first wouldnt he simply fall into the mess and lower jumper?

The standard idea is that the top jumper will chop only once he's clear of lines & canopy. Nobody normally chops if they're still caught up on something, which would tend to lead to having even less 'canopy overhead'.

I'm not that experienced with CRW so I won't get into more detail, but there are ideas in CRW basics articles here:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=39
and here:
http://crwdog.servebeer.com/CRWdog/CRW%20Emergency%20Procedures.html

Regarding "inadequate coaching" -- Not that many jumpers learn CRW these days, so they don't get used to the finer points of maneuvering canopies near each other. Yet then people like to do things like bumping end cells, which is a reasonable thing to do, but are left to learn the lessons on their own...

Large rates of closure when two jumpers aren't flying perfectly parallel, I found that's something that can surprise someone new to CRW style flight. When both jumpers are perfectly parallel, the lack of relative motion may make one feel one is just floating along. But as soon as a component of one's fast forward speed is converted to sideways motion, things can happen quickly.

It was nice that the other jumper went right through the lines (technically an 'entanglement') instead of getting his body wrapped up in lines & canopy (a 'wrap'). The standard entanglement procedure is for the top person to chop first, as when you chop at the bottom, your risers could recoil up and entangle the top jumper. (I've also been in an double chop, but with dacron lined CRW canopies.)

I'm not sure how jumper B's conversation with you saved your lives, but in any case it is normal to communicate so both jumpers are OK with whatever the plan is.

As for the other jumpers continuing to the DZ instead of following gear, that can be questioned, but they were there and know better about the terrain (eg, the suburbia), skills, what gear they had in sight, etc.