peek

My story: http://www.freefall.com/peek/peekfjc.html

tdog: I am assuming you are referring to the list of skills required to get the paragliding licence that I cut an pasted into the forum... Gary: Correct, sorry for the confusion. tdog: On paraglider - you have a radio at all times. I owned/own the radio. It was not hard for an instructor to tell you stuff as you were flying, and them to watch you from the top of the hill. And since you are often so close to the hill, sometimes they just told you as you passed by. Gary: 2-way communication with you having a voice operated transmission? Or just the instructor talking to you? I can see now that I was thinking more along the lines of skydiving canopy flight, where there is a large altitude span during the descent. I suppose it is much more efficient learning paraglider flight because many flights can be made in a short period of time, and with the I close by. Still, perhaps it tells us that we should have radios on our "students" for more jumps and for a much different reason than for when they had only a few jumps...

Dave: As for someone standing in the landing area, my impression is that an instructor is supposed to land in the student area, and wait for the student to land. Extend this to the coaches, and now you have an experienced jumper on hand, to watch and critique the landing. Gary: Yes, I'm sure most do, and I was saying that this part of canopy control evaluation works fairly well. It is adding stuff up at altitude that I have doubts about. However, it seems that video is still needed for some students, who will not believe for example, that their flare is not symetrical and that is why they are landing badly. unless they see it for themselves.

Q for tdog: How are these demonstrated skills at altitude evaluated? Instructor on the ground with binoculars or something similar? group: Currently I am seeing problems with instructors properly evaluating the canopy manuvers already assigned. It is common to ask the student the result of the assigned manuver during debrief to determine if they have done it. I have also heard instructors tell me they have opened up at the same altitude on a jump specifically to stay close under canopy and observe. That works fine for an instructor with a similar wing loading and who can figure out how to open close without being too close. But many don't. In some case the students has (said they have) performed the manuver before the instructor has tracked, opened, squared awat things with their canopy, and looked around for the student. (I have also had students that ran away from me under canopy when I tried doing that with them, because other instructors had empasized avoidance under canopy to the extent that they were afraid.) I can't even get many people interested in doing no-contact CRW they are all so afraid of another canopy near them. The point I am trying to make is: Adding manuvers that cannot be readily observed by an instructor is questionable. It seems to me that what "canopy control classes" best provide is landings that are videoed and discussed at debrief. But someone is going to need to stand in the landing area and do that.

Sorry for the late reply, I must not have had email notification turned on. I don't know of such a program. ---------------------- Questions for the group, however, since there are few replys to this post. Is there little interest in such a program now? Have the web based programs made a Windows program much less useful? Were there any problems downloading it from the Para Publishing web site? If you have not tried it yet, perhaps I need to explain that it is incredibly small, and is a single EXE. No install/uninstall mess, and it does not do ignorant things to your computer. The only files it creates are when you save a color pattern.

If I as a JM was kneeling with my back to the dash, I can't imagine not being in the way of the student getting out. Other JM's less "aware" of the dash could also break things sticking out of the dash with their rigs. This would probably be my biggest concern. It just seems easier for the student to be sitting with their back to the dash. The JM just leans back a little and is completely out of the way. Yes, there is absolutely more difficulty getting the next student into postion with the latter. Part of the training must emphasize not moving around until the JM tells you to.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you were asking for?.. A chart comparing things like: Opening characteristics Toggle pressure Quickness of turns Loss of altitude during various types of turns Reaction to turbulence etc. If so, the answer is basically no. Some of this information can be obtained by reading reviews of canopies once you have narrowed down your choices, but a good overall view of most of the canopies doesn't exist. Of course if there was such a chart, all of these characteristics would by their very nature be evaluated subjectively since there is very little instrumentation available to objectively test these characteristics. Much of it would be simply an experienced jumper/reviewer's opinion. That being said, such a chart would be very useful, at least to eliminate certain "classes" of parachutes for consideration when changing canopies.

(Not neccessarily directed at you Angela, but...) My goodness, and here I thought a lot of skydivers were whiners because they were expected to get a license! (It usually takes me longer to find my reading glasses than to make the entry.) I gave up on "official" (expensive) logbooks long ago. I just get a 99 cent spiral notebook and use one line per jump. So how long can it take to write a jumper number, date, airport, altitude and jump type (so you can go back and figure out how much freefall time if you ever want one of those Wings awards), and aircraft? Gee, if you use one notebook per year you don't even need to write the year each jump! Gee, if you make all your jumps on one day at one drop zone you don't even need to repeat those entries! 6270 12/17 VLA C208 14K Tan 6271 C182 4K CRW 6271 C208 14K 10way [sarcasm] Oh god, do I have to write more?!!!! Oh, my hand is getting a cramp!! God, this is such a hassle!!! Whaaaaa... [/sarcasm]

Have you seen that in print anywhere, or do you know the source? That is an interesting piece of info.

I'm glad you brought up the topic. I went and looked at the listings for a number of drop zones in my region. A number of them listed "accuracy tuffet". WTF ?! The only time I have seen a tuffet at any of these places is when the Golden Knights visited for an event and brought theirs. And reading the reviews of some of these drop zones... Sheesh! [sarcasm] Every drop zone is fantastic in every respect isn't it? [/sarcasm]

Flight Concepts can possibly make you a canopy with black Dacon lines. They ordered the line for a number of canopies they have made for the military, and may still have some. My friend and I have 4 canopies between us with black lines. Very cool. But to answer your question.... Most fabric and lines are just not going to take dye very well. You will be lucky if you get a very light shade of the color dye you use.

I was searching for some web pages about "turbulence" and found the following. Note the article date. The last paragraph, last sentence is amusing. Granted in 1981 we funneled a lot of formations, but really... http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF4/454.html

From December 2004 Skydiving Magazine, "Maybe You've Heard" column USPA [National] Director John DeSantis recently settled the lawsuit former DZ owner Michael Hawkes files against him (Skydiving #272). Hawkes sued DeSantis last year over his role in an earlier lawsuit spawned by a fatal 1998 accident at Hawkes Nevada DZ. DeSantis gave the plaintiffs in that suit more than 200 pages of sensitive documents he had accumulated on Hawkes while serving on the USPA Board [Western Regional Director]. The association's [USPA's] insurers paid DeSantis' defense and paid the settlement.

1. Parachute riggers are qualified to evaluate the airworthiness of a parachute system and with their sign-off, return it to service. 2. Aircraft mechanics are qualified to evaluate the airworthiness of an aircraft and with their sign-off, return it to service. Parallel situations? Legally, of course they are. So why are many parachute riggers unwilling to even inspect (much less sign-off if airworthy) many 20-25 year old parachute systems? So why are aircraft mechanics willing to sign-off the 195x Cesna 182's many of us are jumping from? And why are so many of us willing to think nothing of getting into them for a ride to altitude? Riggers that are afraid of older gear can NEVER give me a reasonable answer to this question. NEVER. Procedures exist for determining if both aircraft and parachute systems are airworthy.

Quite a lot of work on cruciform parachutes. The military wanted to know to what extent they can be steered and how much drive they have. (About a 0.8 to 1 glide ratio at best it turns out. Enough to maybe get back from a bad spot.) Cruciform parachutes are quick and cheap to make because they are two pieces of rectangular material, and they have been used extensively for cargo drops. "Precision Airdrop" is what the army has been interested in for a number of years now, to get the loads closer to the trooops so they are in less danger. They also want to do it with cheaper parachutes. Cruciform parachutes, when deployed from a side door of an aircraft tend to become inverted, not a bad problem for cargo, but bad for steering. We found that they need mesh or "spider" sliders to be more reliable.

That's the howler I refered to. Yes, we use that crucifix parachute to ward off malfunctions. So who is the patron Saint of malfunctions?

Good find. I didn't really think of that one because there is another that is an absolute howler. Anybody?

I think it is a wonderful idea, but..... (You knew there would be a but.) If the industry of skydiving really cared about how well our students learned, this would have been done to some degree a long time ago. For many years a lot of us have said things like "you should become a parachutist before becoming a skydiver." It is still good advice. Unfortunately now, skydiving has become commercialized enough to cause "marketing issues" if a drop zone began requiring certain canopy skills of their students before advancing to longer freefalls. It would take a lot of guts. Imagine DZ "A" requiring this. DZ "B" would have a field day, telling their potential students how much quicker they could do the "real skydiving" part if they chose their DZ. I don't think marketing-wise this would even be possible now. We already have lots of Tandem students, when asked why they chose taking a "ride" rather than having the satisfaction of learning how to skydive by themselves, say that they "want the freefall". (With kind of a crazed expression on their face sometimes I might add!) It has actually put me off on Tandems a bit lately, (and I love doing Tandem instruction.)

Parks College Parachute Research Group in the St. Louis Post Dispatch newspaper: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/sciencemedicine/story/4613B31AAD1C6F0186256F47001D4B87?OpenDocument&Headline=Chuting+the+breeze See if you can spot the gaffes! Our web site: http://www.pcprg.com

After reading all of the posts thus far in this thread, I still can't say that I know what "lock on" refers to!!!

All, FYI: http://www.pcprg.com/hardop.htm

As some of you may recall, a number of years ago I wrote several parachute equipment color programs so you could figure out your color schemes on your computer instead of with colored pencils and the order form. This was long before the popularity of the internet and on-line equipment color programs, so some of you may wonder to what I'm refering. Dan Poynter and ParaPublishing became my publisher and sold these programs. They still do, but since the programs are quite old and are DOS programs, they are no longer popular. Keep in mind, this was before many people even had a color monitor, and before nearly anyone had a color printer! These programs started a great relationship with ParaPublishing and I have worked with Dan since. Well, for the heck of it I went and wrote a new canopy coloring program (for Windows) and it is available for free on ParaPublishing's web site. The links are below. The program only has the 9 cell and 7 cell canopies to work with, no elliptical shapes, etc., but this covers most custom order canopies, (and surely you can use you imagination on what an elliptical will look like!) Parapublishing: www.parapublishing.com Parachutes and Skydiving Information Resources: www.parapublishing.com/parachute/resources.html Direct link to download: www.parapublishing.com/parachute/programs/cancolor.zip Edited by Slotperfect to make the links clicky!

"Freefly-Friendly" Rig or "Freefly-Friendly" System. Something is bothering me here, so I would like to get some opinions of your expectations of your gear. A guy I know had had his 2nd reserve ride due to one of his toggles (somehow!) coming loose and getting outside his rig in freefall. Evidently this has meant an unstowed toggle, turn on opening, unrecoverable spin, cutaway, etc. Now I may be odd or something, but I don't find this at all acceptable. The strange thing I find is his comment to the effect of, "I'll be glad when I get my XXXXX (rig) because this one isn't freefly-friendly. My question to you is whether you think your rig should provide all of the "protection" required of a particular type of skydiving, or whether you think of your gear as a "system", all parts of which need to be designed well and be in good order. For the life of me, I can't figure out why so many people are willing to use riser/toggle combinations that don't securely hold the toggles in place and don't have some place to stow the excess steering line! These are accidents waiting to happen, and they have happened. (And I'm not even talking about Velcro versus non-Velcro styles.)

Just my opinion, but I think postings of AAD's firing is perfectly appropriate for this forum. The skydiving public is always going to be eager to get information on the operation of an AAD, particularly a more recent design. What would be interesting is if someone published a list of all AAD firings from all models and manufacturers. Many firings from the past would be difficult to document, but I would think since the Cypres became popular, that firings have been kept track of. By who I don't know really know.

After seeing yet another round of AAD discussions including inaccurate references to AAD companies and models, I am supplying the following (brief) compilation so that people can more accurately identify the AAD to which they refer. Company Name AAD Model/Name Design Airtec GmbH Cypres microprocessor/solid state pressure sensor http://www.cypres.cc/ (military model too) http://www.cypres-usa.com/ Advanced Aerospace Designs VIGIL microprocessor/solid state pressure sensor http://www.vigil.aero/ FXC Corporation Astra microprocessor/solid state pressure sensor http://www.fxcguardian.com/ Model 12000 mechanical (aneroid, spring activation) (many military models too) Steve Snider Enterprises (SSE) Sentinel electromechanical (aneroid, some electronics) Chechoslovakian? Polish? KAP III mechanical (aneroid, spring activation) (The KAP III has been included because I still hear people refer to it. Its design allows it to be used on the main container of a sport parachute system.)