RichM

I think I understand what you really mean but... Why wouldn't you use rear risers to pull out of a dive? If you recognize immeadiately that you've turned to low, rear risers will get you out of the dive faster than any other option. Rears stall much earlier than toggles and you cannot get as good a swing forward under canopy as using brakes. I don't thin using rears to dig you out of the corner is a good idea, but if you're not in the corner then, I dunno Rich M

Something like an electronics project box with a big button for the skydivers to press and a bright backlit LCD display counting up in feet. Whack the button and the counter resets to 0 and starts counting again. It would need a data feed from a GPS unit, either the planes GPS or a secondary unit, and some logic in it to covert the feed to distance covered over the ground. Do we have any electronics nerds here? Rich M

I can't imagine wanting to be that close. If it's a solo following a solo wouldn't 500ft be plenty? I suppose a "group" can be 1 person. Ahh, good point Rich M

Agreed. Been there, done that, was politely advised to sit fly on a heading for 5 seconds then turn 180 degrees for the next five and so on. I missed him by all of 50 ft as he deployed. He was very nice considering Rich M

I can't imagine wanting to be that close. If it's a solo following a solo wouldn't 500ft be plenty? Rich M

Thanks armon - I didn't know that. Rich M

Sweet, I can do that on run-in, and stash the rest for rainy days. Thanks Bill. Rich M

I can see this working with rear risers as the thrust against risers would deflect the CoM forward. My enquiring mind suggests that this would result in a "swing back" of the whole canopy/pilot system reducing the angle of attack of the canopy and so reducing lift Hmm, and also reducing drag. . Have I just answered my own question? Rich M

I'm not a pilot, please can you explain this to me? (Thinner air?) Rich M

I can see this working with rear risers as the thrust against risers would deflect the CoM forward. My enquiring mind suggests that this would result in a "swing back" of the whole canopy/pilot system reducing the angle of attack of the canopy and so reducing lift; and again I don't understand why this makes for a better swoop (please be aware I'm a novice swooper and can't do this stuff anyway, but I'd like to understand why it works, and possibly it's perception). I can't see it making any significant difference with toggles as there is little force required to move them behind you so they would be having no significant effect on the CoM. In both cases the rear risers would be pulled back which would result in no real change in cathedral whereas flaring with arms out would flatten the cathedral and suggest more upward lift. The only possibility that I can visualise is that canopies fly more effeciently with the back half of the canopy canted back relative to the front half. Maybe this makes for a more efficient lifting wing? I don't know here, but if this is the case, wouldn't a canopy exhibiting these characteristics fly with more lift if the C lines were trimmed slightly longer and the D lines slightly longer still? "Haven't learned to walk yet but trying to fly the space shuttle - any astronauts out there?" :) Rich M

Please can you elaborate on this? Wouldn't the body merely swing around the 3 ring attachment point so that the centre of mass is exactly below the attachment point irrelevent of the body shape? (CoM fractionally in front of that position in the surf, given the canopy is creating more drag than the suspended body). Rich M

Why does this technique work? Any idea's? Rich M

Good general advice but be careful of this one as small wavelets that can be seen from 100ft altitude will only be going in the direction of the wind if the wind has been blowing in the same direction for many hours, even days depending on the depth and size of the body of water. Experienced yachtsmen do not use waves as a wind guide for this reason. Rich M

Heh, unless you are not familiar with pulling the slider down, then having the slider cover your eyes near flare time could be nasty Rich M

But turning low would have hurt a hell of a lot more. Good decision, well done. Rich M

Lies, damned lies and statistics as the saying goes. I know nothing about this dz, the packer, the incidents concerned, etc. But the above statement made me judder. 2 in a guessed 200. What if the next 10,000 packs have no mals? Then he/she is a good packer. Also an average is exactly that and it is unlikely that anyone will actually be exactly average. It seems reasonable to expect a standard bell curve distribution around the average. I hate statistics, except when I'm at work when I abuse them to validate my point of view, irrespective of the facts. Rich M

it's true that RW people drift, so it's possible to drift above the ff if you go after, but the ff fall faster up to a third faster. I'd rather go after them that have them at the same open altitude dropping around. I understood that head downs can track way quicker than any RW drift. If anyone else can put some light on this subject as it always seems a point of argument at some drop zones. Obviously the upper winds come into play. So is it higher upper winds RW people out first? I guess... I think Kallend recently wrote that you can exit in any order you like as long as the seperation is there. His website demonstrates that there should be 300ft (I think, I can't find the URL at the moment) of horizontal seperation at opening height. If the upper winds are known then the run in and exit delay can be adjusted to ensure safe horizontal seperation at opening height. Similarly you can safeky track up jump run as long as the exit delay is adjusted to suit. It's unlikely that an 8 way or bigger at breakoff won't have at least one person tracking up jump run. Brian Burke wrote a paper on the RW/FF exit order issue, available at Skydiveaz.com http://www.skydiveaz.com/resources/Exit_Order.htm. Rich M

I think it was BillVon who brought this up earlier, it does make perfect sense. Think, how fast are you going when you finish your flare and put your feet on the ground? Answer: You're going slow, slower than you were on your straight in final. Jim, please excuse me for clarifying but I didn't read your response in the way I'm sure you meant it . A hot canopy will have a straight flying speed faster than you can run, but they can be stood up on landing. So there will be a period at the end of the surf where the canopy has slowed below it's normal flying speed and is still slowing but is still flying. When this speed slows to running speed you can now "land", and most people will continue to fly their canopies until at least walking speed is achieved. The hook makes the approach faster and the surf longer, but what I've described still happens at the end of that longer surf. The upshot is that no canopy needs to be hooked to land it, the belief that they do is a fairly common misconception. You would have to run out a downwind landing on in moderate winds on any canopy, and this is often seen at swoop meets, but its a function of not landing into wind not of flying hot radical canopies. I hope that clears it and not just confuses it more. Rich M

At the risk of being boring, can I suggest you volunteer to go back to dummy pulls for a jump or two. As you seem aware there are some dangers with deploying on your back, and this may be causing you to tense up and screw up your body position on exit. A dummy pull jump will allow you to concentrate on sorting your legs rather than just pulling the handle. Rich M

Wot?? Eloy is 1500ft ASL and 20C+. I wouldn't think thats a good place for a UK jumper to learn to swoop an unfamiliar canopy, the density altitude will be hugely different. Rich M

:) Rich M

I think Chuck was posting about this recently. Rapid repeated pumping of the brakes while in the surf to loose speed. But be careful not to stall the canopy. As always practise high before bringing it low. Rich M

Why would doing 360s be a good basic skill to learn prior to downsizing? I don't think jump numbers matter for as much as some people think. Joe boring Bloggs doing 5,000 canopy flights under a huge round and always in perfect conditions does not make a good candidate for downsizing to a VX 60 at 3:1. Evaluation of flying skills can only be done on a person by person basis and a talented individual could downsize rapidly should that be what he/she wants to do and his/her coach agrees, while still maintaining a sensible margin for error. I feel that is important that these people understand the risks associated and make an informed decision, but as adults we should be free to do that, and accepting the consequences when things go wrong is a part of that decision making process. As the sport evolves the learning curve for previously god like skills will become shorter and shorter. Look at any other sport, what world champs were doing 10 years ago, club performers are doing now. Mostly this is because we have had the time to distill their hard won learnings to a structured course or even passing conversation; rather than just learning it from scratch ourselves. There will always be people willing to risk more and push the edge of envelope, with the increased risks. What they do now the club performer may be doing in 10 years. This is a frontier sport, enjoyed by people who enjoy taking risks. I'd personally prefer it was left that way. Rich M

Ouch! I'll pm you. Rich M

Uploaded to http://www.btinternet.com/~r.moulton/xaoschop.mpg with Garys permission. 1.8 Mb mpeg file. Gary - I see what you mean! It happens slower than I expected but the results are dramatic. I'll be interested in the dissection by those who know more than I. Rich M