Skydiving and FAA regs

[Ricky]

I just got through watching several skydiving videos trying to
motivate myself to plunk down the money to continue my AFF jumps.

As a pilot/mechanic, I have continually been alarmed at the seeming
disregard for federal regulations in the sport, or are they?

Do jump planes operate under a waiver that permits such things as
aerobatic maneuvers, cloud clearance violations, altitude violations,
oxygen violations, and others?

How about jumpers? Do they get a waiver to bust through clouds and
otherwise bust FAA regs as they see fit?

Is skydiving just something where the regs are "swept under the rug"
and not really paid too much attention to and that's just an "accepted
part of the sport?"

I am a somewhat law-abiding and FAA reg-concious person (I'm an a/c
mechanic, too) so perhaps I am being overly-alarmed at the violations
I have witnessed. It's amazing the amount of busts that are freely
videoed, as well.

Any input ya'll may have on this would be appreciated.

Ricky

[Eric]

Well regarding the jumpers, when hanging under the canopy, I don't see how "busting through clouds"
or "busting FAA" regs would be an issue. They are not operating an aircraft as defined by the FAA
so why would FAA rules apply?

The jump planes and their pilots of course are a different matter...

Eric Law

"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
>I just got through watching several skydiving videos trying to
> motivate myself to plunk down the money to continue my AFF jumps.
>
> As a pilot/mechanic, I have continually been alarmed at the seeming
> disregard for federal regulations in the sport, or are they?
>
> Do jump planes operate under a waiver that permits such things as
> aerobatic maneuvers, cloud clearance violations, altitude violations,
> oxygen violations, and others?
>
> How about jumpers? Do they get a waiver to bust through clouds and
> otherwise bust FAA regs as they see fit?
>
> Is skydiving just something where the regs are "swept under the rug"
> and not really paid too much attention to and that's just an "accepted
> part of the sport?"
>
> I am a somewhat law-abiding and FAA reg-concious person (I'm an a/c
> mechanic, too) so perhaps I am being overly-alarmed at the violations
> I have witnessed. It's amazing the amount of busts that are freely
> videoed, as well.
>
> Any input ya'll may have on this would be appreciated.
>
> Ricky

[Robert Moore]

"Eric"wrote
> Well regarding the jumpers, when hanging under the canopy, I don't see
> how "busting through clouds" or "busting FAA" regs would be an issue.
> They are not operating an aircraft as defined by the FAA so why would
> FAA rules apply?

Part 105: PARACHUTE OPERATIONS

Bob Moore

[Ricky]

On May 22, 6:18 am, "Eric" > wrote:

> Well regarding the jumpers, when hanging under the canopy, I don't see how "busting through clouds"
> or "busting FAA" regs would be an issue. They are not operating an aircraft as defined by the FAA
> so why would FAA rules apply?

Eric, jumpers are under MANY FAA regs.
In fact, just about anything that leaves terra firma is under some
kind of grip by the FAA (model rockets, balloons, kites, etc...)
Part 105 for jumpers, either falling OR under canopy, & part 91 for
the planes. There's also a number of advisory circulars regarding
skydiving.
If you're a jumper & not aware of that it would be supportive of my
suspicion that regs are held in low regard in many cases when it comes
to skydiving.

The below link, in addition to providing helpful FAR links, says,
"skydiving regulates itself" through the USPA, but does that give
licence to hold FARs at arm's length?

See; http://www.aero.com/publications/parachutes/parachut_regulations.htm

Ricky

[Robert M. Gary]

What type of altitude violation could a jumper violate? They are
always transitioning through altitude. I have seen that cloud
clearance does seem to get ignoried and probably shouldn't. We lost a
Piper near here about 5 years ago when a sky diver fell through the
plane, killing all on board.

-Robert

On May 21, 11:21*am, Ricky > wrote:

> Do jump planes operate under a waiver that permits such things as
> aerobatic maneuvers, cloud clearance violations, altitude violations,
> oxygen violations, and others?

[BT]

If you are seeing those things where you are jumping and are concerned.
Perhaps you have a right to be concerned.

Aircraft operations have to adhere to Part 91 for cloud clearances,
aerobatic maneuvers, altitude restrictions, Oxygen etc. Once everyone is
out, the pilot has a parachute, he can do what ever within the POH
limitations.

Define "altitude violations"

Parachute operations are under Part 105. Part 105.17 says no jumping in or
through clouds. Special permission required for all "controlled" airspace
such as Class B, C, and D.

I would not want to be the pilot or parachutists that knowingly "busts a
reg" and then have it displayed on YouTube.

BT


"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
>I just got through watching several skydiving videos trying to
> motivate myself to plunk down the money to continue my AFF jumps.
>
> As a pilot/mechanic, I have continually been alarmed at the seeming
> disregard for federal regulations in the sport, or are they?
>
> Do jump planes operate under a waiver that permits such things as
> aerobatic maneuvers, cloud clearance violations, altitude violations,
> oxygen violations, and others?
>
> How about jumpers? Do they get a waiver to bust through clouds and
> otherwise bust FAA regs as they see fit?
>
> Is skydiving just something where the regs are "swept under the rug"
> and not really paid too much attention to and that's just an "accepted
> part of the sport?"
>
> I am a somewhat law-abiding and FAA reg-concious person (I'm an a/c
> mechanic, too) so perhaps I am being overly-alarmed at the violations
> I have witnessed. It's amazing the amount of busts that are freely
> videoed, as well.
>
> Any input ya'll may have on this would be appreciated.
>
> Ricky

[tp]

On May 22, 12:38*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> What type of altitude violation could a jumper violate? They are
> always transitioning through altitude. I have seen that cloud
> clearance does seem to get ignoried and probably shouldn't. We lost a
> Piper near here about 5 years ago when a sky diver fell through the
> plane, killing all on board.
>
> -Robert
>

This one happened in 1993......no clouds involved.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X13693&ntsbno=BFO94FA015&akey=1

Has there been a similar accident since then?

TonyP

[John S[_2_]]

Eric wrote:
> Well regarding the jumpers, when hanging under the canopy, I don't see how "busting through clouds"
> or "busting FAA" regs would be an issue. They are not operating an aircraft as defined by the FAA
> so why would FAA rules apply?
>
> The jump planes and their pilots of course are a different matter...

Eric,

The FAA is charged with regulating civil aviation, not just "aircraft."
FAA regulations apply to numerous aspects of aviation, including
people falling through US airpace. For example, a sky diver cannot
legally cross through IMC, or through KDCA's airspace.

FAR Part 105 specifically concerns civil Parachute Operations and FAR
Part 65 (subpart F) concerns Parachute riggers. Also, there are
numerous advisory circulars concerning parachute activity.

[[email protected]]

On May 23, 8:12*am, tp > wrote:
> On May 22, 12:38*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > What type of altitude violation could a jumper violate? They are
> > always transitioning through altitude. I have seen that cloud
> > clearance does seem to get ignoried and probably shouldn't. We lost a
> > Piper near here about 5 years ago when a sky diver fell through the
> > plane, killing all on board.
>
> > -Robert
>
> This one happened in 1993......no clouds involved.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X13693&ntsbno=BFO94....
>
> Has there been a similar accident since then?
>
> TonyP

There have been but I can't recall specifics.

FWIW, I've been under canopy at drop zones with regular operating
hours, NOTAMs filed, radio comms to ATC (Houston) and been amazed to
see GA pilots blithely flying through a formation of jumpers under
canopy. I was close enough to see the faces in the front seats.

It works both ways...pilots should also be aware of jump operations
and when they hear 'jumpers in the air' should really be paying
attention.

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 1:21*pm, Ricky > wrote:
> I just got through watching several skydiving videos trying to
> motivate myself to plunk down the money to continue my AFF jumps.
>
> As a pilot/mechanic, I have continually been alarmed at the seeming
> disregard for federal regulations in the sport, or are they?
>
> Do jump planes operate under a waiver that permits such things as
> aerobatic maneuvers, cloud clearance violations, altitude violations,
> oxygen violations, and others?
>
> How about jumpers? Do they get a waiver to bust through clouds and
> otherwise bust FAA regs as they see fit?
>
> Is skydiving just something where the regs are "swept under the rug"
> and not really paid too much attention to and that's just an "accepted
> part of the sport?"
>
> I am a somewhat law-abiding and FAA reg-concious person (I'm an a/c
> mechanic, too) so perhaps I am being overly-alarmed at the violations
> I have witnessed. It's amazing the amount of busts that are freely
> videoed, as well.
>
> Any input ya'll may have on this would be appreciated.
>
> Ricky

Define please "aerobatic maneuvers, cloud clearance violations,
altitude violations,
> oxygen violations"?

Regs state that oxygen shall be used above 15,500', no bail out bottle
req'd for 22K and below....there is no lower limit except for ground
impact. I've never seen an aerobatic maneuver either in or outside of
a jump aircraft so that's a new one (most jumpers would happily kill
the pilot afterwards though). Cloud clearance issues are usually
unintentional but I've seen that one stretched.

One fine May morning in SE texas we had a clear blue sky on exit but
at some point during the 60 second free fall went from clear to socked
in ground fog. That was a very hairy, scary canopy ride since we
could not see anything on the ground, had no idea where the DZ
was...and of course couldn't see the houses, trees or power lines.

[Ricky]

On May 24, 6:47*pm, wrote:

> Define please "aerobatic maneuvers,

Aerobatic flight—

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight

Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
Over an open air assembly of persons;
Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class
C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an
intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s
attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not
necessary for normal flight.

Ricky

[[email protected]]

On May 24, 10:13*pm, Ricky > wrote:
> On May 24, 6:47*pm, wrote:
>
> > Define please "aerobatic maneuvers,
>
> Aerobatic flight—
>
> No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight
>
> Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
> Over an open air assembly of persons;
> Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class
> C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
> Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
> Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
> When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
> For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an
> intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s
> attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not
> necessary for normal flight.
>
USPA 'best practice' requires a minimum exit altitude of 2K'.

I've never seen or heard of anyone performing what is typically
thought of as aerobatic maneuver, i.e., exiting a pitts special, where
proper authorization had not been obtained.

I think you're reaching on the aerobatic. Do you have a specific
incident?

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 05:24:45 -0700, the.sargon wrote:

> I think you're reaching on the aerobatic. Do you have a specific
> incident?

What about "climbing" as an altitude violation for a jumper?

- Andrew

[bod43]

On 26 May, 03:01, Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 05:24:45 -0700, the.sargon wrote:
> > I think you're reaching on the aerobatic. *Do you have a specific
> > incident?
>
> What about "climbing" as an altitude violation for a jumper?

Here is a near miss - in UK I believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHA0zvFfH9U

[[email protected]]

On May 25, 9:01*pm, Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 05:24:45 -0700, the.sargon wrote:
> > I think you're reaching on the aerobatic. *Do you have a specific
> > incident?
>
> What about "climbing" as an altitude violation for a jumper?
>
> * * * * - Andrew

What the heck is climbing?

If you mean BASE jumping then that's not skydiving out of an aircraft
which was the OPs original subject.

[good grief]

> What about "climbing" as an altitude violation for a jumper?
>
> - Andrew

What the heck is climbing?

If you mean BASE jumping then that's not skydiving out of an aircraft
which was the OPs original subject.


Best I can tell he was humorously alluding to the fact that skydivers cannot
go back up and that "climbing" would be some sort of altitude violation (or
at the very least a violation of the laws of physics.) ;-)
Of course I could be wrong......

tp

[vaughn]

"good grief" > wrote in message
...
>"climbing" would be some sort of altitude violation (or at the very least a
>violation of the laws of physics.) ;-)
> Of course I could be wrong......

You are wrong (well, sort of). My gliding instructor was also an avid
skydiver. He took great delight in guiding his jump plane upwind of the
best thermals before he jumped so he could fly into them and circle within
them . He was able to greatly prolong his parachute "flights" and on
occasion, actually climb back up to cloudbase; just like he taught me to do
in the sailplane.

Vaughn

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
"vaughn" > wrote:

> "good grief" > wrote in message
> ...
> >"climbing" would be some sort of altitude violation (or at the very least a
> >violation of the laws of physics.) ;-)
> > Of course I could be wrong......
>
> You are wrong (well, sort of). My gliding instructor was also an avid
> skydiver. He took great delight in guiding his jump plane upwind of the
> best thermals before he jumped so he could fly into them and circle within
> them . He was able to greatly prolong his parachute "flights" and on
> occasion, actually climb back up to cloudbase; just like he taught me to do
> in the sailplane.

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.
:)

Climbing *before* you open the chute, on the other hand, is going to
require some pretty "interesting" conditions....

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

[good grief]

>>"climbing" would be some sort of altitude violation (or at the very least
>>a violation of the laws of physics.) ;-)
>> Of course I could be wrong......
>
> You are wrong (well, sort of). My gliding instructor was also an avid
> skydiver. He took great delight in guiding his jump plane upwind of the
> best thermals before he jumped so he could fly into them and circle within
> them . He was able to greatly prolong his parachute "flights" and on
> occasion, actually climb back up to cloudbase; just like he taught me to
> do in the sailplane.
>
> Vaughn
>
>

I, also, am a skydiver and have taken advantage of thermals during the
canopy ride. I have only encountered "weak" thermals and have only been able
to maintain a given altitude for a short time. While I'm sure it's probable
that a skydiver under a canopy can gain altitude from thermals under "good"
conditions, the canopy (as Mike points out in the post below) is trimmed
quite differently from a paraglider or a powered parachute and is designed
to descend. In my experience, the thermals I have encountered (mostly from
paved parts of the airfield) in Florida are somewhat turbulent. This can be
fun or not depending on the jumper's experience! Sometimes a jumper under a
lightly loaded canopy (usually a student or low-timer) can experience a
little rocking and rolling in thermals or other turbulence that can be a
little disconcerting while he's looking up at the canopy and watching it
flap and breathe and bump. Another thought -- Thermals generated by the sun
beating down on airport pavement are usually blown downwind of the landing
zone at canopy-flying altitudes but ideally the skydiver hangs out upwind of
the LZ before entering the landing pattern. The "going back up" I was
referring to was while in the freefall phase of the skydive but, after
giving it a little more thought, a freefalling skydiver really CAN go up
relative to other freefallers, especially the more massive ones. I usually
have to wear 10 - 15 lbs of lead to keep up with some of the more
"aggressive fallers". (Makes the canopy a little more fun, too!)

tp

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
bod43 > wrote:

> On 26 May, 03:01, Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 May 2009 05:24:45 -0700, the.sargon wrote:
> > > I think you're reaching on the aerobatic. *Do you have a specific
> > > incident?
> >
> > What about "climbing" as an altitude violation for a jumper?
>
> Here is a near miss - in UK I believe.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHA0zvFfH9U

Might have been in the UK, but the Chipmunk had maple leaf markings on
the wings.

Surely scary enough for all concerned.

[Dana M. Hague[_2_]]

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)

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:46:36 +0000, good grief wrote:

> Best I can tell he was humorously alluding to the fact that skydivers
> cannot go back up and that "climbing" would be some sort of altitude
> violation (or at the very least a violation of the laws of physics.) ;-)
> Of course I could be wrong......

You were right. Oh, well; *I* thought it pretty funny.

- Andrew

[Mike Ash]

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

[Steve Hix]

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.

[Peter Dohm]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:46:36 +0000, good grief wrote:
>
>> Best I can tell he was humorously alluding to the fact that skydivers
>> cannot go back up and that "climbing" would be some sort of altitude
>> violation (or at the very least a violation of the laws of physics.) ;-)
>> Of course I could be wrong......
>
> You were right. Oh, well; *I* thought it pretty funny.
>
> - Andrew

I wan smile was about the best I could do, but you do have a point--on some
days, this NG does look like the home of the profoundly humor impaired...
:-(

Peter

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

On May 27, 9:11*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:46:36 +0000, good grief wrote:
>
> >> Best I can tell he was humorously alluding to the fact that skydivers
> >> cannot go back up and that "climbing" would be some sort of altitude
> >> violation (or at the very least a violation of the laws of physics.) ;-)
> >> Of course I could be wrong......
>
> > You were right. *Oh, well; *I* thought it pretty funny.
>
> > - Andrew
>
> I wan smile was about the best I could do, but you do have a point--on some
> days, this NG does look like the home of the profoundly humor impaired...
> :-(
>
> Peter

If only someone here understood what you were trying to say.... ;-)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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/aerodynamics/q0243.shtml

[good grief]

> > 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/aerodynamics/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

[[email protected]]

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/aerodynamics/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'.

[good grief]

>
> > 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/aerodynamics/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'.


OK....so if they are not in Vulco-stationary orbit they must be in powered
spaceflight to maintain their position "non-ballistically".

Is the "winner" of the low-pull contest the guy who pulls the lowest or is
it the guy who didn't bounce? :-)
Anyway......my guess would be....who else but Scotty C. ;-)) No not THAT
Scotty! (sorry...inside joke)

--TonyP

[[email protected]]

On May 28, 10:16*am, "good grief" > wrote:
> > > 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/aerodynamics/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'.
>
> OK....so if they are not in Vulco-stationary orbit they must be in powered
> spaceflight to maintain their position "non-ballistically".
>
> Is the "winner" of the low-pull contest the guy who pulls the lowest or is
> it the guy who didn't bounce? *:-)
> Anyway......my guess would be....who else but Scotty C. ;-)) * No not THAT
> Scotty! (sorry...inside joke)
>
> --TonyP

Never go to a landing party in a red shirt...he pulls lowest...but
doesn't bounce... :-)

I had a 35 second main canopy ride once. AFF first jump student
streamered and I waited until reserve deployment to throwout my pilot
chute...I was in a standing position filming him waaaay above me. I
was open under 1000'. Ooops.

[accelerator]

On May 28, 7:45*pm, wrote:
> On May 28, 10:16*am, "good grief" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > That "realistic"tandemjump 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/aerodynamics/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'.
>
> > OK....so if they are not in Vulco-stationary orbit they must be in powered
> > spaceflight to maintain their position "non-ballistically".
>
> > Is the "winner" of the low-pull contest the guy who pulls the lowest or is
> > it the guy who didn't bounce? *:-)
> > Anyway......my guess would be....who else but Scotty C. ;-)) * No not THAT
> > Scotty! (sorry...inside joke)
>
> > --TonyP
>
> Never go to a landing party in a red shirt...he pulls lowest...but
> doesn't bounce... *:-)
>
> I had a 35 second main canopy ride once. *AFF first jump student
> streamered and I waited until reserve deployment to throwout my pilot
> chute...I was in a standing position filming him waaaay above me. *I
> was open under 1000'. *Ooops.

Shortest canopy ride I had was about a minute and I felt pretty
sheepish about that. AFF L5 student (seems to be a common thread) way
back in '84 and she flat spinned (spun?) I got too carried away, lost
alt awareness and went through the hard deck to dump her out. I
learned a lot from that and never did it again.

Anyway, now I know what pilots really talk about in forums .... Star
Trek! Thanks for the tip, I feel there is a(nother) gap in my
education that I need to get out and fill (the movie).
Cheers
Rob
http://www.acceleratedfreefall.com