pchapman

Here's one about waking up in a field beside one's main after being knocked senseless... with no AAD: This is NickDG posting about an AFF instructional jump that went wrong for him. (I remember the dramatic tale from over 10 years back and just had to find the thread again!) It was likely a Stiletto 135, that he mentioned in another thread and in his profile.

And for reference here's what it says in the Parachute Rigger's Handbook from 2015 -- see attached scans.

Ok, you want further back. I can do Poynter's I, section 7.92.2. Attached. And that shows pin and cone. If you want some original military manual... I'll let someone else step up. I guess we riggers could get into some discussions about seals. I don't recall the details, but I don't think the FAA specifies much, leaving it to the manufacturer -- but I haven't checked the FAR's. Then if the manufacturer doesn't specify much, it leaves it vague. But if one tries to not use a lead seal, the FAA objects even if the manufacturer's instructions allow it. "We won't tell you what to do... unless we don't like it." (UPT for example in a current Vector III manual just says "seal", with a fuzzy picture of a typical seal on a rig. No instructions. Hmm, the ends of the thread aren't knotted, unlike in that Parachute Rigger's Handbook version.)

A fairly standard method is shown in the FAA Parachute Rigger Handbook (faa-h-8083-17) that's out on the web. Either the 2005 or 2015 versions. Any difference of opinion are welcome. (I personally don't bother to knot the thread at the end, after all the threading is done through the lead seal -- a well pressed seal seems to hold the thread in place fine, with never any evidence of a thread pulling out.) I see that Poynters II, p297 doesn't specify an exact method, just showing a small picture of a typical result and saying "in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation for that type of parachute".

Rig weight limits are pretty generous, and some DZ's just don't take really big students. Eg, 230 or 250+ lbs. Others do, but it depends on who they have on staff who can handle that. Note that if a rig is about 50lbs and the max is say 500lbs, that still allows for a 220 lb instructor and 230 lb student. (That's the sort of simple calculations a DZ might make, although technically one might be over the limit as the rig might be a little heavier, people heavier than claimed, and PD for example lowers their weight allowed according to deployment altitude. I'm most familiar with UPT Sigma rigs.) While DZ's vary, I have often seen the smaller female TI's get given the smaller students. Sometimes that's because it's just a real bother to take people up who are a lot bigger than you. (And more so, if in Cessnas not a turbine with a bench for example.) And a safety issue if you haven't worked up to those weights. Sometimes it is because a female TI is inexperienced, so it would apply to a male TI of similar weight just the same. And there are always more TI's who only do it for a few years than those who stick around and become more experienced. Still, there are female TI's with lots of longstanding experience and they may go up with anyone. It will definitely depend on the DZ who they expect you to go up with, but I highly doubt they'll force you to jump with someone extremely heavy that you're really not comfortable with. If someone is at 500 tandems and doesn't want to take anyone over 180, then that might be a pain in the ass for the DZ when it comes to scheduling jumps. Students of such a weight are common and not like a special exception. (And it can annoy the male TI's because you might be 'stealing' the light girls they would like to jump with occasionally!) But it's not like one gets the 250 lb guys just because one is 150 lbs. So don't worry about taking up the big guys. Just think about whether you are good for taking up, say, 180 lb guys 10 times a day and flaring the canopy each time... or whatever would apply at your DZ. There will be differences of course between a big turbine DZ where every cog in the system better be pretty standardized, vs. helping out for a few tandems here or there at a smaller DZ.

Very interesting! This is the first time I've heard anything reported about such cases other than by Airtec itself saying that everything worked fine. While it isn't as if the data is public, it is useful to know an independent, trusted rigger reviewed a bunch of the data. (I know there's still the argument that "How do you know it fired at an actual 750' just because it said it did -- it could be sensing the pressure wrong, and that's the only data we have after the event." Presumably though other data is available, such as the pressure trace to look for anomalies like impossible accelerations, and the unit could be tested for general accuracy.)

Airtec is cutting it pretty fine with their language. "100% reliability" is clearly not true. But it is pretty close to true when you look at the explanatory text after the asterisk, "... no CYPRES failed to activate when the conditions were given." That's awkward English but you know what they mean. They're talking about firing when needed, not whether one fired when not needed. The only case you mention where you make a claim for not firing when needed is the one aobut "fatalities from AAD's that have fired too low". There you have to distinguish between firing too low to survive, and too low compared to the specifications. I think it would be pretty tough to show that any fired below the specified altitude when they shoud have (when set correctly). I don't think anyone has proof of that, even if there are always general suspicions when someone bounces after an AAD fire. You're even blaming problems with reserves and general container design on Airtec, things that affect any modern AAD. The lockup thing while still looking to be "on", that was bad but in the end never resulted in a missed firing that I know of, so technically due to luck Airtec gets a pass on that as far as their firing-when-needed claim goes. So they are sleazy to put the crucial part of their claim into the "fine print", but have some support for their claim if one includes all that...

Jawohl! As opposed to Vigil, who release data graphs from misfire incidents and basically say "we don't know what went wrong" or "it fired like it was supposed to because it sensed the appropriate conditions". Followed by restrictions in the user manual and the like without necessarily improving the product.* * Such as the door open restrictions around firing altitude after inadvertent firing in the plane. And there were the 'waterproof' units that later were not considered waterproof and had to be sent in if soaked. Or the Vigil 2+ now doesn't arm until 1000 ft above the ground, more like the Cypres philosophy, but totally unlike what they always trumpeted for the Vigil I and II about their amazing sensitivity. Or changing their bulletin numbering system in 2015 to be based on date and not a sequential number -- maybe that's an innocent change but it helps you forget about the earlier bulletins #1 through 10. That being said, both companies have been doing better in recent years. Just keeping the AAD wars alive Ken!

Even then, the page is so crude it looks like something whipped out just to test the functions, where nobody went back to design the "real" page before the system was rolled out.

Ah, Cypres life. I looked at their document* again and the language is a bit vague, but I still understand it is 15.5 with no maintenance. Service is just "recommended". The vague part was where they wrote "For this extended service life we offer a maintenance at 5 years and 10 years [...]" But later they say "In short:" and state 15.5 years, service recommended. No conditions. Edit: Haven't checked back on their website to check for anything newer though. Gotta run now. (To the OP: The Cypres was the original modern electronic AAD and was more conservative with maintenance than other companies later chose to be. In the early days, AADs were highly distrusted, so Cypres wanted close control of their product.) * The original announcement I saw was a scan of a physical letter of Jan 26, 2017.

Any of the 3 major brands is OK. new Cypres' are 15.5 yrs no maintenance (older used ones were 12.5 with maintenance at 4 & 8 years) Vigil 20 years but send it in at 10 for battery M2 15 yrs no maintenance Plenty of debate possible about how well trusted each is and what their track record is, but nobody is going to look at you like a weirdo with any of those. (It's like how some people will always go Mac for a PC but for others a Windows machine is perfectly acceptable.) One can also debate screens, ease of setup for special conditions, multi mode ability for special conditions... But for regular jumping all are fine.

It is tricky to provide answers because you really need to know about your own parachute's glide polar -- it's forward and downward speed under every different condition of control application -- and do a little vector math using the canopy's velocity and that of the wind. Although there are shortcut visual tricks to figuring it out. So if your parachute is moving forward 30 mph and descending at 8 mph, and there's a 10 mph headwind, the net effect is 20 forward and 8 down. Then you apply brakes or whatever and your canopy in particular with your weight now goes 25 forward and 5 down, the net effect is 15 forward and 5 down. (And I'm simplifying here by using forward speed of the canopy over the ground, not the actual air speed along the flight path, which is the wind you'll feel in your face.) In this particular case you went from 8/20= .4 slope to 5/15 = .33 slope downwards. (I'm not bothering to calculate degrees.) In this case however much brakes you applied, gave a shallower downwards flight path (.33 not .4) and you'll land longer than you would have. You just need to know your canopy and the result of your control inputs on flight path and speeds and combine that with the unseen wind speed in a trigonomic calculation. Or........ In practice, you learn to judge these things by seeing what actually happens. You have to know the "accuracy trick" and see what point ahead of you on final approach neither rises nor falls in your line of vision. So you'll experiment with brake positions on different wind days, no wind, low wind, medium wind, and high. Of course you have to watch out for not stalling, not interfering with traffic, and reattaining sufficient energy and proper flight path before the flare. A canopy course can help sort some of this stuff out. There are indeed rules of thumb, where someone might say, "On a typical modern canopy, adding a little to moderate brake with low headwinds on final will result in landing longer. But when the wind gets strong, moderate brake will make you land shorter." Simple, eh?

Huh! That happened today, Sunday, the short article said. Still, audio and ebook versions already made it to torrent sites two days earlier. So even if WikiLeaks is popularizing the free release of the book, it isn't like it did it first or did anything that doesn't already happen to a lot of books. There's still clearly a good paid market for the book. Still at the top of Amazon book rankings at the moment.

Most perplexing, I'm sure Mr. Trump thought, after giving her such high praise on her desirability and usefulness as a woman! 'What unfathomable minds those creatures have...'

Certainly the AFFI behaviour in the OP's case sounds strange and uncaring. Behaviour will also depend on DZ culture and standards. E.g., One DZ I was at decided a few years ago to make a rule about staying with an injured student, where staff accompanying a student in the air had to stay with their student even after help had arrived. So if a tandem student is unlucky and breaks an ankle, the instructor and camera flyer would have to stay with them for some extended time instead of running off to their next student as soon as help arrived. Instructors and especially cam flyers could otherwise say their job was done; "Not my problem now, as unfortunate as it is. I have an obligation to other students now too! Gotta run for the next load." I've also seen it where AFF instructors (or PFF where I am) are not expected to hang around watching the student floating around 'forever'. They're back inside the hangar packing furiously or prepping the next AFF or tandem student. Yes they'll debrief the student on his canopy flight and landing. And if there are concerns go talk to the ground based radio instructor. An AFF might even run back outside to watch the student's final turns and landing. But the standard isn't to stand around waiting for the student to float on down. I'm not saying what's right; just that standards vary even when making sure the student is supervised and debriefed.

Franz Reichelt going splat, now that's a little mean.

Indeed, but what else can one do, if one one has previously bought or has to maintain gear from a company that is no longer responsive... PdF were once innovators in the sport, and pretty big in Europe. Not being in Europe I don't remember the story, but they now no longer really seem to use their original name, and are a tiny part of a large conglomerate with parachutes (civilian & military) as just one small portion. If I drill down deep in Zodiac's website I can find Atom rigs etc only within "Zodiac Aerosafety Systems (Parachutes & Protection), Personal Parachute Systems".

Well that's new to me -and likely quite a few others in North America. Although I once saw a late 1970s rig, long out of service, with a white cutaway cable like that -- no metal core. That was scary. (Since it came from back in the days of more experimentation with cutaway cables, and poorer plastics technology.)

Regarding: "I wanted to pay for two other jumpers tickets for one jump. They don't allow this " While it is great to have that service, sometimes DZ's don't want to end up running a bank. It can be awkward in manifest programs to take money from one account and move to another. (I'm talking about 'paying for another jumper's jump' through one's account, rather than just walking up with cash and putting it on that guy's account -- which is simpler usually.) Manifest starts to feel like a bank teller if more transactions go on, like "I want to put some of my account money on his, because I just bought his used canopy and it is simpler FOR ME to transfer rather than to sign off for my staff earnings to cash out now and pay him directly." or "I owe him for dinner last night, can you transfer money over?" (I hope Mr. Mullins gets the answers he wants. But none of us is immune to threads spreading and drifting to related topics....)

I'll also note that the puds of the 1970s were often poorly designed and not very secure. I had a Racer with a pullout in the early 90s, or early 80s vintage, and the pullout pud had a quite secure design with stiffeners and pocketed ends. Maybe not as secure as a modern freefly handle with tuck tab, but pretty decent. I did dislodge it once but even as a 50 jump newbie it wasn't hard to find the pud attachment and pull on it. So if comparing designs, one would want to compare modern pullouts -- not 70s pullouts -- to modern BOC's. And nowadays even if you had idiots losing track of time with a floating pud, most would be saved by their AADs. (But I acknowledge that much of the reason for pullouts has disappeared over the years. Pullouts were sometimes more secure than leg strap throw outs. But nowadays with BOC throw outs with tuck tabs, those are quite secure. ) Gotta run; that's all for now.

Hmm, I was just about to say, all those reserve deployments would be considered out of sequence.... unless you somehow artificially exclude them because of a spring loaded PC, maybe because it "it is out of sequence but isn't out of sequence for that long so I won't count it because I want to say that pull-outs are bad, without saying that all our reserves are bad too". So I'm in the camp saying that a pull out isn't 'out of sequence' -- but whether a pull out or a reserve, one can debate how well the staging of the deployment is protected from becoming out of sequence in less than ideal circumstances. Most reserve deployments just have the bag sitting there waiting to fall out, except for any pocketing going on by the container, while the PC extracts and the bridle stretches out. Exceptions being a few early 1980's rigs with hesitator/staging loops, and the appreciable number of Vectors and Sigmas and Icons for example adding them back in again in the last decade or so. (I won't count MARDs; that gets messy, as they do restrain the bridle somewhat but don't stop the bag from tumbling out.)

Argh, can't find it at the moment. Somewhere buried in all the cascading list of comments in the original fb post by B. Batignani, there was a link to a photo, I think. But a vimeo link (https://vimeo.com/190054711) was also posted for the jump video and I was able to spot it for just a moment - see attached.

For anyone watching who doesn't already know the background -- or at least what I'm guessing is the background: Original facebook post in French (but one can click translate): https://www.facebook.com/benjaminbatignani/posts/10155245425823233 A main line snagged on the main top flap of an Icon, that used a semi-stowless bag. Cutaway done, main trailing by one line, reserve pin got bent by the forces of the snag, pin extracted only with a lot of effort, reserve cleared the trailing main. (Plus reports of a second snag, that happened to someone else) Repost to the popular Parachute Rigging for Dummies facebook group, with discussion in English: (need to be a group member I think) https://www.facebook.com/groups/ParachuteRigging/permalink/1741450782545373/?hc_location=ufi Just trying to tie everything together!

I'm curious. Was that about adding new things in skydiving? Or changing things? Because would have thought experienced jumpers would be interested in new gear and new styles of flying. For example, "So tell me about these new MARDs -- I just know the traditional Skyhook." or "So what procedures are people using for safety in angle flying, now that it is becoming popular?" Versus: " You're telling me I should strongly consider an RSL? Use a freaking AAD for EVERY jump? Pull way up high? We never needed that shit before and were fine!"

Latest numbers (which may not be final) are 49.9% to 48.4%. So Alabama is still pretty divided.