Basejumper.com - archive

First off, this thread is to obtain feedback and pass along info to the higher ups in the forest service organization. Currently the US forest service is far behind the curve when it comes to canopy technology for smoke jumping. The current system is a static line deployed round with a chest mounted round reserve. The BLM uses 7 cell ram-air canopies similar to skydive accuracy canopies, but are still behind on their R&D. The push is to eventually merge the Forest Service into the square technology. I jump a Troll 265 MDV and would jump that into any smokejumper jump country, given a larger canopy size due to my smokejumper exit weight of 270lbs. Any helpful information that I can pass along is greatly appreciated! More smokejumper info here http://www.answers.com/topic/smokejumper

Check out the 'Intruder' canopy by Airborne Systems. Its used for low level static line insertion as well as HAHO/HALO. Loads upto about 300lbs +, ZP with Vents. Its also designed to land at high altitudes, on DZ's upto 10,000ft above sea level.

At PIA in Reno a couple of years ago, Atair had a flyer marketing what appeared to be a Troll MDV specifically for a smoke jumper canopy.

Might call/email them and get them to send a flyer to you.

Tell them we wont help unless they make a deal with the NPS.

Yeah this is true... They even have an ad online... The BLM was R&Ding an Atair canopy, but I don't think it was the correct size canopy because all the jumpers that I talked to that jumped it didn't like it as much...

You mean testing an Atair canopy? I doubt Atair would have BLM jumpers evaluating a canopy with R&D in mind.

Improper wing-loading will make get ANY canopy bad reviews for this type of application.

If I was doing reviews for a canopy to be used for deep-braked landings in boulders and I was only given a BlackJack 200 to use, I would give it horrible reviews.

Given a BlackJack 260, I would give it stellar reviews.

For static line deployments with minimally trained jumpers, I can see their logic for using rounds. Other than that, I would prefer to see a little bit more training and then putting jumpers under a low aspect ratio square.

Don't see any need for vents though.

I think Bill Gargano recently designed a round for smoke jumpers too... or was it for the army?

No offense but... Have you seen where these guys land?!?!?! "Static line with minimally trained jumpers?" These guys are FUCKING BAD ASS MOFO's!!!! Even if they are not "skydivers" or "BASE Jumpers".

They land in places and conditions that would make a seasoned BASE Jumper crap his (or her) pants and run to mama! Minimally trained my ass! They used Static lines because they are jumping from hundreds of feet above super gnar gnar terrain loaded down with buttloads of gear! oh... and INTO a FOREST FIRE no less...

You missed my point.

I was validating their logic to use rounds. It makes sense for a few certain applications.

These guys can PLF their asses off while carrying a ton of gear. They jump into fires with all of the associated air anomalies one would expect near a large fire. Small rocky landing areas... I get it. Dangerous. Scary.

But, none of that qualifies them to sink a square canopy into the same landing area. Completely different set of skills... well, the PLF will certainly be useful. They would need additional training beyond what they've received in order to use ram air parachutes safely.

Based on my experience in the military (and assuming their are similar circumstances), I would guess that getting their fiscal staff to approve all those expensive training jumps just so that they could justify spending even more money on totally new equipment... might be a hard argument to win. So what do they do? keep using the old proven system.

And have you seen many BASE landing areas? I've seen a few pretty nasty ones myself, as have many other jumpers on this forum.

 Like I said. No offense.

I understand where you are coming from. I'm just giving credit where credit is due. There is a difference between minimally trained and differently trained.

They are by no means a helpless passenger underneath those things. Teaching them how to use ram air canopies would not be difficult.

We are not THAT special.


Do you want a medal?

Hehe... no thanks, not from you.

They were just jumping the Atair canopy to see if they liked the performance when jumping jump spots like we do. i agree on proper sizing of a conopy to make it perform at its highest... The forest service is jumping a round called the FS-14 there are a few R&D rounds circulated through the different jump bases with ZP, but I think we have maxed out the performance that we can get out of any round! The reason the FS isn't jumping a square is because a jumper was killed durring the testing of the canopy back in the early 90's. The problem is convincing the feds that a square conopy is the way of the future.

What is the training program currently like for smokejumpers?

Is there a requirement for prior parachuting experience or do they train from ground up?

How many training jumps did you make in school?

How many training jumps (not actual fire jumps) do you make in a year?

Usually 5 + years of fire experience
They train from the ground up, usually about 5 weeks or so and get around 17 jumps. Durring the fire season we have to have a practice jump every 2 weeks to stay current and on a good year get about 20 fire and practice jumps...

>>Durring the fire season we have to have a practice jump every 2 weeks to stay current and on a good year get about 20 fire and practice jumps...<<

There's the rub . . .

Smoke (and military jumpers too) just (in general) never get proficient enough to take full advantage of whatever the hot accuracy/performance canopy happens to be. It would make more sense if, by mandate, you were ordered to spend your off duty time sport jumping or better yet prowling around downtown for BASE jumps. But until that happens, and it won't, you (as a group) are better off overall on the biggest lowest performance canopies there are in order to negate errors in judgment. You can't shovel dirt with a broken leg . . .

NickD

i think you can shovel dirt with a broken leg, if you had a broken arm then it would be a problem =D

This thread begs the question: Do they have a usable material or treatment for canopies that would make them more fire resistant? Granted, a nomex canopy sounds ridiculous, but something like it?

Depending on conditions, jumps spots can be miles away... Once you land you have to hike to the fire. Our round canopies only have 10-12 mph of forward drive... Anything higher and you're flying backwards... Not good when you have one specific jump spot you are trying to hit. This is why a ram air is much more practical. It opens up more jump conditions. I agree that it takes a higher skilled canopy pilot to fly a squar, but these days squares are becoming much more accurate, more predictible, and more forgiving, and still would be better than a round.

Does the forest service use pathfinders to spot the jumps? I'm assuming that by jumping miles away, they're aiming for nice, safe, open landing areas? Otherwise, if you're landing in trees and shit, (as much as my busted knees hate to say this), I'd keep using rounds.
Having landed in a tree with both a round and a square, I'd much rather do it again if necessary under a round, cause there's less forward drive.

 
I can actually see advantages to a round over a square. Some of these landing areas might be surounded by TALL trees, requiering very steep approaches. And if you miss going down between tall trees with a round might be much more survivable then with a square.

What kind of round are they jumping? Today we might be able to build them a much better and lighter round.

Lee

>>I suppose the bronse star will have to do

Reopen thread just to see if there are is any new ideas. We are moving forward with a piggyback system.

Something like the 'Aviator' Bailout square/round from rigging innovations but sized up and with a matching reserve? you could still static line it just like anything and it has a slightly higher forward speed than a round but less than a square with all the steerability and slow descent rate. Doesn't take much skill to fly or land and is more reliable than the typical C-9 looking thing they are using now which sucks. Just a thought.

I thought I might bring this post back. The US Forest Service is on the verge of moving to ram air canopies. The problem is that the are looking to move to 25 year old technology from the BLM. I need points to pas up the chain to show that there is better options out there in the ram air world more suited for the mission. Thanks

Mission specific canopies are the issue here. Tall timber is a better match with a round than a square. Good runways with outs are better suited for square's. I personally did 50+ jumps on the current round the FS is using now, that is also being used by the Mountain warfare guy's too. I worked for the designer of the FS 14, Bill Gargano. Dude is a genius at parachute design.. Remember most rookie Smoke Jumpers go on a fire with around 9 Jumps.

Speaking of smokejumping, you might be able to BASE jump off the New River Gorge Bridge soon and help put out the fire in the gorge.

http://www.nps.gov/...ia/neri_crvccam1.htm

http://www.wvnstv.com/...ed-due-to-brush-fire

Sign me up! I hate brush fires!