Basejumper.com - archive

Has anyone made B.A.S.E. jumps with crossbraced canopies ? maybe are some photos ...

Not recommended. See attachment from http://www.bridgeday.info/malfunctions.php

why anyone wanted to that?

I have video of a guy jumping a VX (or FX, not 100% sure) off the Potato Bridge.

He landed it. Not pretty... but he landed it.

That's a very bad idea, unless (a) you're willing to take big risks, and (b) you really know what you're doing both with BASE and the high performance canopy. I've seen several near misses result from these attempts (as well as a few very cool jumps), and also a VX with a big tear down the middle.

yes - early model icarus extreme 95 - OVER WATER - back in about 1996

Marvin jumped a 74 at bridge day in 2000 too - using the hand assisted deployment. Its on various video's including Beyond Extreme

In 2002 Marvin jumped a similar canopy, using a 42" PC in a javelin reserve freebag (in the main container). He ended up losing the freebag (it wrapped the lower steel), but the system worked well.

Yep.....refer back to CPoxon's 2nd post to this thread to see the line twists he had. I believe that was Marvin.

Yeah Tom,

That Marvin jump looked really cooooooool

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't it be a much happier opening if you rolled it over? I know that a lot of people say, "it isn't a BASE jump if it isn't packed", but wouldn't you definitely get the thing off of there with many less problems. Not to mention put you much higher (which would help a lot, say at the potato, depending on glide rates of said canopy). I don't fly small elipticals, but hear a lot about a lot of them being very ground hungry. I would just think that say you had an end cell closed on opening, you are already low, then you have to pump the brakes, get some wicked surge down... could get REAL ugly REAL fast.

I'd guess that some kind of unpacked opening would be far better than a packed opening. But, my experience with those kinds of canopies is basically nil.

Note that the jump I referred to above, which resulted in a large tear down the canopy was a VX McConkey'd off the Potato State span. The lines on those canopies are apparently short enough that they can't hang below the steel, even at the center of the bridge. This one apparently opened off-heading and caught the steel, resulting in a split second hang up, then tearing free. Considering the other possibilities in that situation (hang up all day, tear the canopy so badly it can't fly, and plummet into the water), I'd say he got off cheap.

He did get off cheap! I hadn't really considered that as a factor. Do you know if he had enough tension in the lines, or was it just so squirrely of a canopy? Also, do you know if he was jumping as far at the apex of the span as possible? (I would assume it was)

He got off not dead ... or injured. That's pretty cheap. Seriously. The height of that bridge is lower than people begin their hookturns on cross braced canopies so you run out of altitude really quick.

Heck it's lower than the altitude I'd initiate a 270 on my Crossfire2 with (a non-crossbraced elliptical canopy for those who didn't know this), let alone whatever altitude you'll eat up waiting for the canopy to properly pressurize. I'm thinking that the only way to make this jump (if you were crazy enough to do it) was to land straight onto the beach or straight onto the water. But I guess there's always going to be someone who needs to try the balls'y stuff to try and make themselves stand out above everyone else. But for me highly loaded ellipticals (they don't even have to be cross-braced) are made for the skydiving swooping environment not the BASE environment (I hate to state the obvious).

Dang ... I'm enjoying swooping and BASE jumping these days. You'd think I could find two safer activities to float my boat. But these are the two which seem to have me captivated at this time. Just don't fuck up right.

Roll over on a small elliptical????????

No it would certainly NOT be better. It would probably be a hell of a lot more fun though.

The chance of line overs and uneven inflation are much greater on a rollover - especially on smaller & elliptical canopies.

Wads are more reliable than rollovers (assuming they are executed properly) for one VERY obvious reason.

The canopy has to change its orientation by a full 180 degrees on a rollover. The lines also have to pass untensioned by the canopy material which increases the likelihood of lineovers.

Wads are more like normal deployments in that the canopy is thrown upwards (similar to the way a pilot chute would extract a canopy), the lines unstow AWAY from the canopy, and the deployment sequences continues. i.e. the WAD is more like a normal deployment except that the pilot chute / bridle stretch / container opening components of the opening sequence are eliminated.

I don't think I'm familiar with a WAD. Similar to a TARD? and yes, I think it would be fun too. With the lineover issue, couldn't you somehow incorporate a tailgate device of some kind? I hear of people using tape as makeshift tailgates, maybe something like that might work here? Also, does anyone know how far down aproximately the steel reaches on the potato? Has anyone ever done any measurements (at the apex)?

Tom must be shaking his head at the youngsters right now...

The WAD was an early (perhaps the original?) unpacked jump. I've been told that WAD stands for Wild Ass Deployment. I've seen video of WADs being done at Bridge Day in the way back, and once read a long description that one of those folks had posted on line. I'm pretty sure that Tom was doing WAD's years before anybody made up the name TARD.

A WAD is basically a "packed" TARD. The canopy is actually folded carefully, the lines are stowed, etc. It's a lot more careful than a TARD, and hence has significantly better openings that are perhaps a tad slower.

Where would we be without the ballsy people . I kind of look at it like this: People think skydivers are crazy, skydivers think BASE jumpers are crazy, some BASE jumpers think aerials are crazy, etc., etc., etc. I know I have freaked out one or more BASE jumpers with my antics (which were completely reasonable, really), but, different strokes for different folks. Sometimes the envelope just gets bigger. Sometimes peoples comfort zone is so different that a crazy thing to one person is just the next step for someone else. I don't know, more ranting, right?
BTW, Canuck, I will be at the potato the entirity of August, so if you get up there, drop me a line. Email's best.
Soft landings

yes, us youngsters will learn, one manuever at a time.
Soft landings

Hey Rauk

One of the lines I like from the movie Adrenaline Rush is "sometimes the greatest risk in life is not taking a risk at all". So I'm with you on the comfort level stuff. But personally I don't think jumping gear designed for high performance skydiving canopy flight in the BASE environment is all that smart. But then what do I know? I'm new to BASE and I'm not on the PST circuit either.

I should be up in Potato Land at least once in August (and for the Labor Day long weekend) so I'll see you then. Are you holding off on all jumping until your move?

Tom, are you referring to Tim H. from Brooklyn? He's probably the most well known WAD jumper, especially at Bridge Day.

For a little WAD history, in late 1993 I took a "BASE Course" from Mark Hewitt at Z-Hills. I already had one BASE jump and was looking to learn more. Mark showed us the WAD at that time. I'm sure it's even older than that.

WAD = I did my first around 1994 or 5 - I heard of the technique but not the name. I called it the WAD -Wand assisted Deployment. The wand came from the magic that was in my hands. I waved the hand and presto - there was an inflated canopy. Not bad thinking for someone who never really got into drugs.. Using the proper technique, the WAD would open faster that a s/l and was very reliable.

TARD's are fun things you do off bridges. Not recommended off cliffs. It's a Russian Roulette technique.

We build crossed braced canopies...

We build BASE canopies....

I work with both alot in manufacturing and jumping...

Two different animals, two different venues.

Please report your experiences... I dare not try it myself.

Good luck,

Chris
Precision

would cross bracing a base canopy make it better? for high/low jumps? Or would it make the canopy slower to inflate?

Crossbraced canopies exist to allow a higher wing loading beyond the point where a non-crossbraced canopy would cease to function properly and thus allow the person jumping the crossbraced canopy to fly at higher airspeeds and get longer swoops. Do you really want to be zooming around the skies at high air speeds in the BASE environment?

Maybe I don't have enough knowledge of parachute construction and maybe I'm not looking beyond the box. But to me crossbraced canopies are only flown once you've maxed out the performance of your conventional highly loaded canopy and have little use in the BASE environment (unless you've got balls of steel ... or was that just a steel plate in your head).

crossbracing or dribs are for reducing the overall number of lines and thus reducing drag. with x-bracing (depending on the configuration) you can span a greater number of cells between spanwise line attachment points. e.g. three half-cells between linesets as opposed to two half cells between linesets. It's like how a girder bridge is constructed - placing things in tension/compression. depending on the dribs, one can also maintain a little better rib profile shape across the canopy.

xbracing might benefit the BASE canopy in maintaining rib shape, but I doubt it's worth the extra cost to do it, plus it may hinder inflation (though doubtfully if the dribs are drastically cutout http://www.brackenbury.ca/kites/page4/photo39.htm). Finally, I don't really want to place more stress on fewer lines and reduce the overall ability of the canopy to transfer stresses from the risers to the fabric, in the BASE environment, so reducing the number of lines isn't of interest to me personally. I'd rather have a few extra lines for the instances where one or more might fail.

Gardner