DaVinciflies

Two King Airs with big engines and totally refitted interiors - with a boat load of money to spare!

If there are individuals who think like that then they are deluded. It only takes a momentary lapse to screw-up a swoop with horrible consequences. To assume that one is better than a person who does have an accident is extreme arrogance. I would venture to say, Sir, that you are incorrect in this, at least for some of us. The reason I want to swoop is not because it is dangerous, but because it is technically challenging and enormous fun when done right. Speed in itself is fun, and that is independent of the danger. Unfortunately the two are intrinsically linked. BTW - how much worse is "brutally fatal" than just "fatal?

"Our God is an an awesome God" does make it sound like there are a bunch of Gods of which this particular one is one of the best.

People say that a lot and I don't think it is true. As long as you can track and be stable at pull time there is nothing wrong with not mastering belly flying if it holds no interest for you.

What do you mean by "traffic" in this statement? Are you saying these turns don't fit in with the standard pattern or these turns should not be done even in dedicated HP landing areas if there is someone else in the air? Well, both really. Never in the the standard pattern (per the USPA member pledge) and not in the dedicated HP area if there is someone in the way (e.g someone below setting up for a 90 when you are setting up for a 270 to swoop the same lane). Separation is the key. By time or space.

Not disagreeing with you, just adding that I think forward penetration is often misused as an excuse to downsize. Skydivers need to think locally...a jumper on a square with a 1:1 loading at a DZ with 15 - 20mph and surrounded by soy beans is one thing...going backwards and landing off is not likely to be a big deal. That same jumper and conditions at a DZ surrounded by trees, buildings, powerlines, and bull fields with only a couple of outs is where more penetration can be helpful to give the jumper more options of where they can land. ....and there is always the option to stay on the ground. People often discuss the merits of downsizing or not, but rarely do I see it summed up as "a smaller canopy gives the pilot a smaller margin for error". To me that is what it comes down to. Whether we are talking about being able to fly a precise pattern, get enough landing separation or to survive a low turn or a no-flare landing, it's all going to be easier on a larger, slower canopy. Just this weekend I saw a whole bunch of landings where jumpers flared asymmetrically. No great problem on a Navigator loaded at 0.75, but potentially career ending on a Velocity @ 2.7. Smaller canopies can be more fun, but they bite much harder and faster.

Some thoughts on 180s vs 270s: 1. Both turns are potentially lethal in traffic and should not be done. Period. 2. On a dedicated pass, 270s are easier to set up for a specific swoop lane as the setup is cross-wind vs. downwind for a 180 (assuming landing in to the wind.) 3. A well-executed 270 can build more speed than a 180, and is potentially more dangerous if the pilot is in the corner but the larger heading change may allow more time/altitude to adjust for being high or low. IMO what it probably comes down to is that the safest turn is the one you are most familiar with and the one where there is NO chance of encountering traffic.

I wonder if this sometimes happens as the PC is withdrawn from the BOC. Could it be a packing error, not just a "shit happens"?

That's 70 pack jobs per day every day for 20 years with no days off! Busy packer.

Hope is not a strategy.

At what canopy size, loading or other factors do you consider it is worthwhile to bring the slider down behind the head?

I don't believe the relationship with license, or jump numbers, is a direct one. There are significant numbers of D-license holders who would not qualify for Advanced or Expert.

I bet you downsize at some point!

Can anyone expand on why this might be? I too thought, originally, that leaning back would cause loading of both rear risers and a resultant planing out of the canopy. However, in reality, the weight shift between the fronts and rears is likely to be negligible since we are effectively hung beneath a pivot where the risers meet the harness. So, how does leaning forward/back actually affect the glide of the canopy? One theory I have is that is relates purely to the drag of the jumper. Lean back - more drag - canopy moves forward relative to jumper - more dive. Lean fwd - less drag - jumper moves forward relative to canopy - flatter glide.

You take double standards to new heights.

Is "out of sight out of mind" a legal principle? I am not sure you're right on this one. I am not saying it is right, merely that I believe that the buck stops with the PIC.

As I understand it, if the rig is not airworthy and somebody jumps it, then the pilot will be the one the FAA go after. Any other thoughts?

IMO it is not airworthy for that (or any other student) jumper in the USA. IMO Yes (in the USA).

It all sounds a bit hit and miss to me. What if there is one pass with a swooper getting out after the tandems and pulling high to work on some canopy skills? There is a chance that it could cause conflict in the swoop lane. Sorry to get off the point, but it seems to me like the whole system needs a re-think. Maybe with the input of someone independent like a PDFT member or AggieDave or equivalent (if indeed there is an equivalent ). They could review landing areas, allowable turns and separation and come up with a workable plan.

My thoughts are that, for a licensed jumper, choosing not to turn on an AAD is a perfectly acceptable choice (if not necessarily wise) and does not render the rig unairworthy. That same up-jumper forgetting to turn the AAD on is the same until the day that having a functioning AAD is mandatory for all jumpers.

Are there any rules about separation by time? If not I think this is a very bad idea.

It all sounds quite odd and not very well thought out. Are you saying it's "bigger than 270, or no HP turns" - ie. no 90s? What about people wanting to learn - just bust a 270 on your first swoop? I don't buy into the "180s are more dangerous" thing - it's just a normal pattern with a very short base leg - particularly if it is a carving turn vs a snap. On the issue of commitment and bailing, the last 2/3 of a 270 is a 180 anyway so I don't understand that at all. Finally, if you have a swoop lane - why limit the turns people can do there? IMO either you or the S&TA are confused about something here.

I believe (and I am not a rigger so correct me if I am wrong) that an AAD has to be functional (i.e in date and with enough "life" to last until the end of the packjob and with functioning batteries) for a rigger to be allowed to install it in a rig. Missing the closing loop renders it unable to perform its function of cutting the closing loop so therefore a mis-routed closing loop would make that packjob unairworthy. This is all opinion based on my understanding of the rules.

So you don't consider this a flaw? I am sorry but if I paid for an AAD and I paid a rigger to install it for me I would not share your opinion that missing the closing loop and making the AAD totally redundant was a flawless packjob.

That's a pretty crazy statement, IMO. I'd say that was the bare minimum performance level, wouldn't you? It takes a hell of a lot more than that to be anywhere near perfect. Again - WTF? Are you saying that the people with permanent brain or spinal injuries as a result of jumping were "perfect enough"? I think I could find a few people in that category to disagree with you.