Skydiving and FAA regs

On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:53:34 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

And there is of course an entire sport dedicated to this called
paragliding. I believe their parachutes are somewhat different, but that
just means it's harder to thermal a skydiving parachute, not impossible.

Despite some similarities in appearance and construction, a paraglider
is COMPLETELY different from a skydiving parachute. A paraglider is a
wing (PG pilot's don't call them "parachutes"), designed solely for
gliding flight, and cannot be used for jumping (the shock of a free
fall opening would destroy it).

But yes, it's just [barely] possible to thermal a skydiving parachute.
And there are some horror stories of people who have bailed out into
thunderstorms and reached alarming altitudes...

-Dana
--
When you get it right
mighty beasts float up into the sky
When you get it wrong
people die

-Roger Bacon (c1384)

In article ,
Dana M. Hague wrote:

On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:53:34 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

And there is of course an entire sport dedicated to this called
paragliding. I believe their parachutes are somewhat different, but that
just means it's harder to thermal a skydiving parachute, not impossible.

Despite some similarities in appearance and construction, a paraglider
is COMPLETELY different from a skydiving parachute. A paraglider is a
wing (PG pilot's don't call them "parachutes"), designed solely for
gliding flight, and cannot be used for jumping (the shock of a free
fall opening would destroy it).

What do they think the "para" in "paragliding" comes from, then?

Good information about the opening shock. I had no idea about that.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On May 27, 9:22*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,
*Dana M. Hague wrote:

On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:53:34 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

And there is of course an entire sport dedicated to this called
paragliding. I believe their parachutes are somewhat different, but that
just means it's harder to thermal a skydiving parachute, not impossible.

Despite some similarities in appearance and construction, a paraglider
is COMPLETELY different from a skydiving parachute. *A paraglider is a
wing (PG pilot's don't call them "parachutes"), designed solely for
gliding flight, and cannot be used for jumping (the shock of a free
fall opening would destroy it).

What do they think the "para" in "paragliding" comes from, then?

Good information about the opening shock. I had no idea about that.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Yep. One of the most realistic moments in the latest Star Trek film
was the ad hoc tandem jump of Kirk and Sulu. Upon deployment Kirk's
canopy is immediately ripped away. Although (IIRC) the film indicated
a riser-harness (french links! those *******s!) failure it is more
likely that a riser connection would fail or seams would rip leading
to a 'blown out' canopy. That's one of the reasons tandem jumps use
drogue chutes.

wrote:

Yep. One of the most realistic moments in the latest Star Trek film
was the ad hoc tandem jump of Kirk and Sulu. Upon deployment Kirk's
canopy is immediately ripped away. Although (IIRC) the film indicated
a riser-harness (french links! those *******s!) failure it is more
likely that a riser connection would fail or seams would rip leading
to a 'blown out' canopy. That's one of the reasons tandem jumps use
drogue chutes.


That "realistic" tandem jump was preceded by a jump from orbit.

On May 28, 7:06*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
wrote:

Yep. *One of the most realistic moments in the latest Star Trek film
was the ad hoc tandem jump of Kirk and Sulu. *Upon deployment Kirk's
canopy is immediately ripped away. *Although (IIRC) the film indicated
a riser-harness (french links! those *******s!) failure it is more
likely that a riser connection would fail or seams would rip leading
to a 'blown out' canopy. *That's one of the reasons tandem jumps use
drogue chutes.

That "realistic" tandem jump was preceded by a jump from orbit.

Actually, if you paid attention to the dialog (albeit brief) the
mining platform was not 'in orbit' but was rather 'in hover'. Thus
the jump was not 'from orbit' and was not subject to re-entry
conditions. Instead it was more akin to Joe Kittinger's jump in 1960
from 102,000 feet in a balloon. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0243.shtml

Yep. One of the most realistic moments in the latest Star Trek film
was the ad hoc tandem jump of Kirk and Sulu. Upon deployment Kirk's
canopy is immediately ripped away. Although (IIRC) the film indicated
a riser-harness (french links! those *******s!) failure it is more
likely that a riser connection would fail or seams would rip leading
to a 'blown out' canopy. That's one of the reasons tandem jumps use
drogue chutes.

That "realistic" tandem jump was preceded by a jump from orbit.

Actually, if you paid attention to the dialog (albeit brief) the
mining platform was not 'in orbit' but was rather 'in hover'. Thus
the jump was not 'from orbit' and was not subject to re-entry
conditions. Instead it was more akin to Joe Kittinger's jump in 1960
from 102,000 feet in a balloon.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0243.shtml


Boy! that'd be a bitch to "spot"!........ with the DZ moving at 1000 mph
below you and the surface dragging the atmosphere with it. I guess you could
drop some streamers. ;-)

I wonder how you'd do the "hover" thing? Also, I haven't seen the movie yet
but WTF could they possibly be mining in open space? Dark matter?

~ tp

On May 28, 9:31*am, "good grief" wrote:
Yep. One of the most realistic moments in the latest Star Trek film
was the ad hoc tandem jump of Kirk and Sulu. Upon deployment Kirk's
canopy is immediately ripped away. Although (IIRC) the film indicated
a riser-harness (french links! those *******s!) failure it is more
likely that a riser connection would fail or seams would rip leading
to a 'blown out' canopy. That's one of the reasons tandem jumps use
drogue chutes.

That "realistic" tandem jump was preceded by a jump from orbit.
Actually, if you paid attention to the dialog (albeit brief) the
mining platform was not 'in orbit' but was rather 'in hover'. *Thus
the jump was not 'from orbit' and was not subject to re-entry
conditions. *Instead it was more akin to Joe Kittinger's jump in 1960
from 102,000 feet in a balloon.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0243.shtml

Boy! that'd be a bitch to "spot"!........ with the DZ moving at 1000 mph
below you and the surface dragging the atmosphere with it. I guess you could
drop some streamers. ;-)

I wonder how you'd do the "hover" thing? *Also, I haven't seen the movie yet
but WTF could they possibly be mining in open space? Dark matter?

~ tp

Hmmm...don't want to spoil it for you. The platform is hovering over
Vulcan...and you're in the ballpark with the 'matter'. They matched
rotation so it was a relative work hover g. Three jumpers in the
scene and one is wearing red...guess who 'wins' the low pull contest?

Similar to all my buddies ragging on me for shooting video- I liked
freefall RW, just didn't like to touch anyone- just 'hover'.

In article ,
Dana M. Hague wrote:

On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:53:34 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

And there is of course an entire sport dedicated to this called
paragliding. I believe their parachutes are somewhat different, but that
just means it's harder to thermal a skydiving parachute, not impossible.

Despite some similarities in appearance and construction, a paraglider
is COMPLETELY different from a skydiving parachute. A paraglider is a
wing (PG pilot's don't call them "parachutes"), designed solely for
gliding flight, and cannot be used for jumping (the shock of a free
fall opening would destroy it).

But yes, it's just [barely] possible to thermal a skydiving parachute.
And there are some horror stories of people who have bailed out into
thunderstorms and reached alarming altitudes...

"The Man Who Rode the Thunder", Lt. Col. William Rankin, USMC, for one.