From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sports (Rated Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Air sports (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Air sports project.

2006 Vandalism[edit]

This article is a persistent recent target of vandalism (September 2006). The vandalism has persisted unfixed for 2 days sometimes. PLEASE add this article to your watch lists, for everyone who has contributed good edits. Mdrejhon 21:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A Nasty Typo[edit]

Reading the article, I noticed a typo in the term "parachute rigger" - on five occasions, the "r" in "rigger" appears as an "n". I suggest a hasty correction.

Fixed. Thanks for bringing this to attention. Rklawton 17:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite Needed[edit]

I propose rewriting/reorganizing all parachuting related articles to make them more readable and navigable. Check out my sandbox for my current outline: User:Rklawton/Sandbox Rklawton 20:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your outline looks good to me. One point though; there's no need to separate every smallest component of a rig into an article of its own, or to have a separate article for high-speed and low-speed mals until the articles grow too big. "Parachuting" is too big at the moment; it should be split to several articles. However, there is no information on malfunctions at the moment so there is no justification for creating separate articles for them just yet. Skydiver 08:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Rklawton 16:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In principal it is a good thing, BUT there are serious problems the way the new structure invents distinctions between skydiving and parachuting. It is all skydiving, even a static line jump is refered to as a skydive by all skydivers and instructors in the sport. Technically you are in freefall until the end of the static line engages your deployment system. Sport jumpers use static line deployment as a training method and count it as skydives. Military calls sport jumps HALO jumps and uses modern sport equipment or very similar, they have adopted all the sport innovations including military using AFF jump training used in the sport world. Deployment system details are barely worthy of mention in this article it should be left for gear articles (it is see pilot chute), all use pilot chutes (except direct bag and that's typically BASE jumping). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 08:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Camera flying copyvio[edit]

The extremely long section about camera flying was copied verbatim from [1]. I replaced it with a two-sentence stub. Could someone who is familiar with camera flying write something from scratch? Thanks! -- hike395 13:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Folks are invited to help here: User:Rklawton/Sandbox Rklawton 05:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the meaning of the "abdallah mohammed egypt" text I saw in the section. It seemed totally irrelevant, so I deleted it. Peasreach77 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Infomration about skydiving simulators and wind tunnels[edit]

There is no mentioning of wind tunnels and skydiving simulators. I think we need to mention them. Hopefully I will get some information down about that. -- sjcomp 25 Feb 2005

From the end of safety:

In many countries, either the local regulations or the liability-conscious prudence of the dropzone owners require that parachutists must have attained the age of majority before engaging in the sport.

What is the age of majority? I've never heard of that phrase before.

"The age of majority" is the age at which one becomes legally an adult; meaning their parents are no longer required to support them, they can vote, etc. In the United States, this is the age of 18.Rlevse 16:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
This is fixed -- Last year I added the link to the vertical wind tunnel article that I created. Mdrejhon 21:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Why do they bother wearing a helmet? Can you ALMOST make it? If you jump off a plane and your parachute does'nt open up, well i got news for you pal! The helmet will wear you for protection!

Helmets are worn to protect the jumpers from minor strikes on the airplane (hitting the door on the way out) and from strikes in formation in freefall. In general, skydiving helmets are much lighter than other helmets and aren't really intended for serious impacts like bicycle or motorcycle helmets are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For parachute failures there's the reserve parachute. The helmet is to protect your head against injury if you bump into the airplane door on exit, other skydivers in freefall, the ground on a poorly executed landing, etc. Paul Koning (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did some slight wikification on this one, but I think there should be a bit about equipment. For the rest I consider it a rather good article, apart from it's length.

Nazgjunk||(talk) 17:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There is an article called Parachute. It needs a bit of work in regard to sports parachute equipment, but I think that would be the appropriate place for information about gear. Skydiver 12:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


After seeing first hand many injuries and two fatalities, I think the section on safety understates the dangers of skydiving. There'd be few long term jumpers that don't know personally, or at least know of, someone who has gone in. I'm going to reword.

I have cleaned up the safety section. The high performance canopy section was very poorly worded. High performance canopies do not cause death. Low turns and high performance landings (especially without proper coaching) are the problem. It was very biased.
I also removed the section on BASE jumping. BASE jumping is a different sport entirely and therefore is irrelevant. Also, without a governing body there are no accurate statistics just anecdotal evidence and rough estimations.
I removed the paragraph suggesting that new skydivers are "dangerous" and are shunned. I have travelled the country and most skydivers at most DZ's are very welcoming of people newer to the sport. Most skydivers with higher jumps love teaching and jumping with newer skydivers. This is the attitude of the skydiving community (generally speaking) as a whole. Unless anyone can back those statements up with fact it needs to be left out.
I also removed the part about skydivers being most dangerous between 100-150 jumps as no source was cited.
It's a smaller change, but in the US only USPA dropzones have S & TA's. Membership is voluntary to the USPA as well.RWgirl 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Shortening the article[edit]

I've split off Cross-country jump and (re)moved most of the text under Tracking to Freeflying/Tracking. The text under the Tracking-section didn't really have anything Freeflying/Tracking doesn't cover.Skydiver 15:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


I think that "skydiving" as a recreation should be its own seperate article. This article is fairly long and it concerns things other than skydiving for recreation, which I think would have quite enough stuff to be its own article. I came to the article looking for "skydiving" and didn't want to go through the article to find it, although it is in there.


Should we add SAR (Search and Rescue) to the list of parachuting occupations? Seems important--Doc0tis 20:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Parachuting v. Skydiving[edit]

To shorten this article, it might help to split off parachuting from "Skydiving." This works if we consider parachuting as a means of transportation or life-saving. Here’s a hierarchy of articles that I think makes sense:

Parachuting: descent solely by means of parachute.

Military parachuting:

Bailout systems

Note these are separate from how these are applied airborne, SEALS, SAR, SAS, SF, etc. Articles on application, for example SAR, can then link back to the article(s) on methods.

Note that the equipment and procedures for each of these methods are different.

Civilian parachuting:

BASE jumping (from a fixed object)
Skydiving (from an aircraft)

Again, equipment and methods differ between these methods.

With this approach, Skydiving (recreational) becomes a subcategory under civilian parachuting which is a subcategory under parachuting. We can then write separate articles on types of equipment, professions, and disciplines and link them back to the relevant articles. The following hierarchy illustrates one thread of articles under parachuting equipment:

Skydiving gear
Pilot chute

Each profession involving parachuting should also have its own article. SEALS, no doubt, have their own article, so why not smoke jumpers, tandem-masters, jump-pilot, and videographers? The “professions” articles could then link back to the method and equipment articles appropriate for their trade.

Question: What’s the best way to flesh out a hierarchy of articles and then complete each? Should we turn this into a project? It’s off-season here in the north, so maybe now is a good time to work on this. Rklawton 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to start an article on "general parachuting" that would include short paragraphs on all kinds of parachuting. Most of this article(the current Parachuting) should be moved to "Skydiving" or "Sports parachuting". "Skydiving" would be my personal preference, but it could be argued that CRW and accuracy jumpers don't skydive, they just parachute. I don't think I agree on your main division between military and civilian parachuting. The military has skydiving teams, civilians do S/L, smoke jumpers are civilians but use mostly military technique etc. I think it should be just:
BASE jumping
Smoke jumping
bailout systems Aircrew emergency parachutes (Just my personal preference)
Ejection seat systems
What do you think? Skydiver 16:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think parachuting boils down to:
  • Professional
  • Sport
  • Emergency
Note: HALO is Professional->Military, BASE goes under Sport, Ejection systems goes under Emergency, Smoke Jumping goes under Professional.
I would include these three introductions in the main parachuting article and then branch off from there. This would make the parachuting article much shorter and easier to follow. I like this three part breakdown at the highest level because the training and equipment also branch off at this point. As a result, we'd have different articles on equipment (parachute, harness, container, etc.) and training within each of these three branches. As a result, readers won't see "Swing Lander Trainers" in the same article as Bill Booth's tandem video (military training, sport training).
I've started working on this in my own little sandbox [User:Rklawton/Sandbox]]. I'll copy these ideas over and insert them into the existing outline. Note that each item in the outline may simply be a header or subheader within an article and not necessarily an article itself. I still have a long way to go as I flesh this out. My plan is to flesh this out in my sandbox, post notes in the talk pages for all existing parachuting related articles with specific suggestions and a link back to my sandbox for comment, and then after a suitable discussion period clean up, merge, or add articles as per the sandbox drafts in one great sweep. I realize this should actually become a "project," but I don't know the first thing about creating or managing wiki projects here. Oh! Here's my sandbox: User:Rklawton/Sandbox. You are invited to comment/edit as desired. Rklawton 05:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Skydiving is Parachuting and is called skydiving by participants Even a static line jump counts as a skydive for the short period until the end of the line.

All people who actually jump call it skydiving including static line jumps. A skydiver, military included will ask how many skydives or jumps they have they never refer to the activity as parachuting.

BASE is a different sport and there is a disticntion, a BASE jump uses a parachute descent but is not a skydive, BASE jumping already has a separate article.

The text below draws many false distinctions for example the military uses very similar equipment to sports skydivers for HALO and would call an average sports jump a HALO jump, special forces even train using the same methods initially (AFF for the first few jumps).

A true military HALO jump typically starts at altitudes requiring oxygen bottles (due to Surface-to-Air Missile threat), and in combat, canopy openings may be low enough to not be considered safe (i.e. insufficient for reserve chute opening). HALO jumping is taught in "Advanced Freefall" schools. Air temps at those altitudes are sub-zero. Not your average freefall jumps. HALO jumping was pioneered by MAC-V Studies and Observations Group (SOG) for use in Vietnam. Refer to "SOG: The Secret War of America's Commandos in Vietnam" by John L. Plaster Caisson 06 (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling this "Parachuting" just makes it sound like this whole thing is written by whuffos DO NOT SPLIT THIS, and start calling it by the correct name, thanks my 2c (yup, I am a skydiver).

I suggest you call this "skydiving" redirect parachuting to it, and structure the article appropriately, do not split and CERTAINLY do not split skydiving with parachuting, that would be a complete mess and an emarrassment for wikipedia.

If you disagree go to a dropzone and get a skydiving license before editing this article SERIOUSLY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 07:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Manuvering in air?[edit]

Just curious, what kind of manuvers are possible while in free fall (before parachute is deployed). In other words can they change their facing, spin, flip, etc by using their arms and legs? About how manuverable would you say a person is in free fall?

You've got complete maneuverability on all three axes, roll, pitch, and yaw. Folks who use all three are called "freefliers." See Freeflying. Keep in mind that body position will also affect airspeed and flight direction.Rklawton 05:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Skydiving vs. Parachuting[edit]

As a skydiver, I object to skydiving being redirected here and then to be told that "Parachuting, or skydiving, is an activity involving the breaking of a free-fall from a height using a parachute". Skydiving is not that at all. Skydiving is about the part before the parachute opens.

I'm sure there are skydivers who will disagree on this, but at the very least, skydiving is certainly not limited to "an activity involving the breaking of a free-fall from a height using a parachute".

I agree. It's on my todo list. All the sport-related stuff is in serious need of overhaul.Rklawton 15:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree (though that definition works for CRW ;-) and think it'd be a good idea to reduce the parachuting page to one that links to the various forms of parachuting, e.g. skydiving and base jumping as these, though directly related, are totally different sports, and skydiving defines the sport better than parachuting. Superdix 10:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Parachuting merge[edit]

Both articles are already very long. Merging them makes little sense. One article is about a piece of hardware. The other article is about the hardware's many applications. If if the topics were about Toasters and Toasting, I'd understand. Rklawton 19:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If there is a problem here, it's not that the two should be merged, it's that parachute covers too much ground. Superdix 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Me too - they are about different things. Ian Page 01:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
As a skydiver, I agree as well. Parachuting and skydiving are NOT the same thing. -E
Oppose merge. Parachute is a device, parachuting is something done with the device, both deserve their own separate articles. If anything I think we need to consider splitting off skydiving, the sport, as a separate article from parachuting which is a much broader topic. Dragomiloff 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag removed - it's been a couple of weeks, and I see no merge supporters here. Rklawton 03:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 19:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed some more links that really didn't fit in here, a few commercial dropzones, pages without references and an empty website. I left out the ones the skydiving community actually uses, such as,, and the various governing bodies. The page was also left in. Superdix 10:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Parachute deployment[edit]

This section needs rework and illustration. To wit:

Not all deployment systems operate the same way. Some systems use rip-cords, some use pull-out, some use throw-out. Some throwout systems are bottom-of-container, but others are mounted on the leg strap.

Manufacturers and riggers may configure backup systems (reserve parachutes) may also be configured differently. Sport parachutists now use piggyback systems. However, American paratroopers use belly-mounts. Reserve deployement methods also differ. They include manual deployment, reserve static line, SOS, AAD, and/or Skyhook(tm) in various combinations. BASE rigs may have no backup system at all. Rklawton 19:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern RW[edit]

One editor suggested that "Modern" RW got its start in the 70's and 80's. However, the term "Relative Work" goes back to '64 with the Arvin Good Guys. Heck, the first 10-way was built in the 60's, and that's an effort that requires "modern RW". I think the editor was relying too much on a single source for his/her information. Rklawton 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BASE Jumping[edit]

Base jumping is it's own sport. It is not skydiving or as you all call it "parachuting." Just because the person uses a canopy similar to a skydiving canopy is not justification to lump it into the same catagory. No one has lumped paragliding into the "parachuting" catagory. The USPA and FAA don't feel BASE is a part of skydiving, so without a source cited it shouldn't be included. Here's a link to the SIM which covers all aspects of [2]this sport.RWgirl 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this article is not about skydiving. It is about parachuting (to jump, fall, descend, etc. using such a device). Parasailing is about gliding, so it isn't included, but BASE jumping is about falling, and so it is. Rklawton 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going by FAA defintion. They do make law and their law should dictate defintions. Parachuting is defined by the FAR's (parts 95 and 105).RWgirl 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia - an international encyclopedia; not just an encyclopedia for the USA and USPA. What the FAA has to say about terms is interesting, but it doesn't establish the scope of Wikipedia articles. Read the dictionary definition of "parachuting" and you'll see that BASE jumping falls neatly within it (pun intended). The dictionary definition does not mention any requirement for an aircaft at all.
Incidentally, the FAA doesn't make law. Legislatures do. The FAA makes regulations (FARs).
I suggest creating an article called "skydiving" as a subset of "parachuting" where you can exclude CRW and BASE jumping with impunity. Rklawton 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I might have been syntaxically (I know it isn't a real word) incorrect about the FAA but you get my drift.

Cuturally and legally (at least in the US) BASE is considered a different sport. I think it's important to make the distinction. I've been in the sport far too long and might be a wee bit touchy(Skydiver curmudgeon alert!), but I take great offense to lumping BASE in with my sport. BASE is illegal in most parts of the US, has no governing body, and has no truely effective way to self police. It's a completely different skill set and uses very different gear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RWgirl (talkcontribs)

BASE jumping/per se is not outlawed. There exist only location-specific prohibitions. BASE jumping has its own article, but it's still a subset of "parachuting." Try thinking of your sport as "skydiving" instead. Remember the first word in the SIM title is "Skydiver's" - not "Parachutist's". And the USPA has had numerous debates about changing the name of their publication for that very reason. Here's the really fun irony. Skydiving magazine covers BASE jumping, but Parachutist refuses. Talk about misnomers! Rklawton 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The publishers of Skydiver and the USPA need to offically swap names of their magazines. Can we at least agree that "chute" is not a term that should be used ever? My number one pet peeve is when wuffos call it a "chute."RWgirl 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid slang in articles - except, of course, when defining slang. If that's your number one pet peeve, though, count yourself lucky. Mine is when riggers forget to remove their packing straps from reserve parachutes before closing the container. Rklawton 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

CRW is part of skydiving by the way. I'll cite my source when parachuting gets seperated from skydivingRWgirl 21:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Without the freefall component, it's not really skydiving, and the CRW dogs will tell you as much. Of course, the FAA and the USPA think of it as part of parachuting. But there's no "diving" in CRW - just jumping. Rklawton 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just going by (FAA) definition. I don't know, CRW dogs here would take issue with not being included in the article. Anyway, that's probably a debate best saved for the day skydiving gets it's own page.RWgirl 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Equipment requirements[edit]

Equipment and other legal requirements are going to vary by country and even by dropzone. A breakdown of sport parachuting requirements by country might be interesting. For example, in the U.S., there's no legal authority to stop me (other than common sense - and maybe state-run child protective services) from strapping a TSO'd (and in-date) rig on my six year old child and throwing her out of an airplane. The USPA would never speak to me again, but the USPA does not have any legal authority in the U.S. Rklawton 22:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true there's no legal age requirement in the US. But it's really not that simple. As an example look at Tandems. Strong and (I believe) Vector both have age reqirements for their tandem harnesses. Technichally, if your not following the requirements you are in violation of the FARs since the harness is a TSO'd piece of gear.

It's a complicated and murky issue. The FAA had age requirements in the past. I have no idea why they changed it.RWgirl 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say tandem. Related to that, though, when tandem's lost their experimental designation, they lost the legal authority to control tandem use. Nowadays, they can only rely on contractual terms - which is a different animal entirely. Rklawton 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I realise you didn't say tandem. I was just using it as an example since it's the most debated. The argument about the contractual control is the other side of the legal coin. As of yet, I'm unaware of any FSDO investigating any DZ for taking under age (according to manufacturer reccomendation) tandem students. I fear it will take some poor twelve year old to die before a serious investigaion happens and clarification of the FARs occur. RWgirl 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
When I last talked to the big names about this (and things do change), the FSDO has nothing to say about age because it falls outside the FARs and he/she has no authority over civil contracts. Kids, by the way, have been jumping (tandems, too), for over 25 years. At least on the tandem side, there have been no incidents. If an accident should occur, it would be investigated like any other civil aviation accident. The real fun begins when the lawyers hit the fan. Some states allow guardians to sign away the rights of minors, while others (like Illinois) do not. The "worst" that would happen on the regulatory side would be that the FAA might amend a regulation. While that's possible, it's not likely. Rklawton 23:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

External link recommendation - Deep blue sky[edit]

Here is the link to a story about tandem parachuting: Deep blue sky

This might be a nice addition to external links. --Borislav Dopudja 06:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Borislav. Your article has the markings of a homepage/blog posting, which unfortunately is not appropriate to post on Wikipedia. Superdix 12:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Borislav Dopudja 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a short documentary about skydiving. This piece really gives viewers the feel of what it is like to skydive, as there do not seem to be any other videos of what tends to be an extremely visual sport. This is a great mini-episode shot in part with a helmet camera mounted on a videographer jumping along with the host of the show "Outdoor Philadelphia". The show appears on the Philadelphia Inquirer website. -- (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


I seem to recall reading some article that implied that if you spin and get to over 100 rpm during a drop that you end up loosing consciousness. Can anyone here confirm that? Wikiphyte 11:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There certainly have been people losing consciousness after going into a violent spin. I'm pretty sure you can find a description of such an event on Superdix 12:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanx mate:) Wikiphyte 11:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Commercial parachuting services vs. parachuting clubs[edit]

The article has this section flagged as disputed, but I can't see any reference on the talk page. I'd suggest removing this section entirely and I see it as just opinion. Its also very artificial to divide club into large and small in this way, for example the article says you will get a more experienced instructor by going to a busier club - when you could easily get a new instructor at a big club, or someone with many thousands of jumps at a small club. Thelem 18:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I attempted to rewrite the section to achieve a NPOV and it was darn near impossible. I'm going to go ahead and remove the section and move anything that has any merit into other, appropriate, sections of the article.Summeree 00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification please[edit]

Please clarify this sentence: "This lack of "falling" sensation does not exist when they leave the plane, as their momentum from the plane causes the acceleration forces to be slow as their direction of travel changes from the direction of the airplane's flight to the direction pulled by the force of gravity." Is the sentence saying there is a sensation of falling when leaving the plane, or not?--agr 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no sensation of falling when exiting a forward-moving aircraft. Therefore, the sentence should have been phrased, "This 'falling' sensation..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrutiny11 (talkcontribs) 17:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


I don't get this sentence: ... it was common for an individual jumper to go up in a Beech 18 or Douglas DC-3 aircraft for reasons of economy. How would that be economical, especially as a DC-3 is a pretty large bird? Maikel 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"parachuting" as name for method of ingestion needs mention.[edit]

"Parachuting" can also refer to the method of wrapping a drug or substance in paper and swallowing it, usually illicit drugs that might damage your teeth if not wrapped, i.e. crystal meth. There should at least be mention of this or a disambiguation page. (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely a typo?[edit]

"Equipment failure rarely causes fatalities and injuries. While approximately one in 6 jumps results in a main parachute malfunction, reserve canopies are packed by an FAA licensed rigger and are designed to be highly reliable. Though they have a failure rate of 1 out of 3 jumps."

highly reliable = 1 failure out of 3 jumps!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That whole section needs looking at. While I have never parachuted in my life, one failure out of six seems exceptionally high. I've watched many more than six people make parachute jumps and none have had a main chute failure, unless it's in some tiny way that didn't affect the chute. Could someone look at this? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Skydiving bias[edit]

The article seems to be sometimes more about skydiving than it is about parachuting, presumably as a result of the recent merge. For example the section on parachute deployment doesn't talk at all about static lines, the most common method of deployment in beginner parachuting. There seem to be other places where non-skydiving activies are ignored. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


I added this since this is so notable, for with bated breath and million spent by him he could break 4 records:Michel Fournier, 64, will attempt on May 24, 2008 to break Joe Kittinger's 1960 records by Le Grand Saut (The Great Leap) from the Saskatchewan plains. He will climb into the pressurized capsule or gondola of the 650-foot balloon, and make a 2-hour journey to 130,000 feet or almost 25 miles. Wearing only a special space suit and a parachute, he will plunge down in a mere 15 minutes. If successful, he will fall longer, farther and faster than anyone in history, breaking the 50 years sound barrier and 4 records: fastest free fall, longest free fall, highest altitude for a human balloon flight and highest parachute jump. Fournier attempted his stunt but failed twice, amid 8,000 jumps and setting a French record from an altitude of more than 39,000 feet, his highest jump to, Man Plans to Plunge to Earth From 130,000, French parachutist aims for skydiving record --Florentino floro (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This article appears to be a more of an advertisement for a certain dropzone (business) and therefore biased and appears to be only those dropzones that the owners of Hinckley, IL's Chicagoland Skydiving Center are using this article to push their own interests. Besides the biases, the lack of references is disturbing in that there are several governing bodies in parachuting with updated information and millions of photographs and examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Spinning malfunctions[edit]

Ram-air parachutes typically spin uncontrollably when malfunctioned

Though this is technically true, it is misleading. There are many other types of malfunction; they involve the whole system and not just the parachute and spinning malfunctions are only common for high experience jumpers using canopies with high wingloadings. (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to the virtual reality simulation, mentioned in the article[edit]

The article talks about wind tunnels under Wikipedia:Parachuting#Training. Wind tunnel page has links to actual companies that allow one to find them. But there is no link for virtual reality parachute simulators. I know one company: Static Line Interactive. Should it be added as an external link to the page? Alexander. (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Broches and pins[edit]

Would there be such thing as a kitshop that would sell memorabilias for different (degrees or titles)of achieveness or accomplishments. Interesting decals, broches & pins. Please send info to: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


I recently read about the "new" European record in large formation of 104... The "large Swede" was 107 and made it into the record books in 1998. What has happened to this one? Or is Sweden not part of Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Jay Stokes... uhh 640 jumps in 24 hours? Impossible, I say. That means one every 2 or 3 minutes. 2 or 3 minutes to get in a plane, get high enough to jump, jump, get to the ground, and start all over again. Without a break. B.S. I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong information[edit]

Regarding the following lines: >> One in nine commercial parachutes fail to open, requiring the reserve chute to be used. One in eight reserve chutes fail to open.

This is not only missing a citation, but seems unclear at best and outright wrong at worst. Where did this information come from, and what is this part trying to say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilwombat (talkcontribs) 09:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo - "higher high"[edit]

The text: "have a higher high potential" looks like it needs a word removed.

Canopy collisions[edit]

A collision with another canopy is a statistical hazard, and may be avoided by observing simple principles.[citation needed] -- i allowed myself to add the 'citation needed' tag. But seriously is this content of somewhat value? thanks Swissjane (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Records Section[edit]

The record citation "Adrian Nicholas holds the record for the longest freefall. A 4 minutes and 55 seconds wingsuit jump made on 12 March 1999.[17]" is inaccurate. A wingsuit jump is not considered free fall, as the jumper is aided by his/her wingsuit with an extraordinary increase in lift.

The citation #17 reads "On March 12 he soared for 4 minutes and 55 seconds, covering 10 miles, both world records, before descending safely." At that time, that was a record for longest wingsuit jump in terms of both time and distance. Whether that record still stands can be up for debate somewhere else.

I suggest removing the record citation for Adrian Nicholas from the "Parachuting" article. It would be better placed in "Wingsuit Flying".

no history?[edit]

There is no history section, is it intentional? --K0zka (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


Parachutes were used in both airplanes and observation balloons during World War I, as can be seen at The parachute was rigged to deploy via static line when the pilot leaped overboard. Thus I doubt the article's claim of the first static line jump being in 1919.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

classical accuracy[edit]

The sizes of the target seem inconsistent - I'd rewrite it, but don't know enough about the subject. Can somebody who knows fix this? Anniepoo (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Content duplicated in Thomas Jeannerot article[edit]

Content in the Sprint section starting with 'Style can be considered as sprint of parachuting' is duplicated in the Thomas Jeannerot article. Does anything need to be done about it? There was an attempted merge in March 2015.SovalValtos (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Gary Connery Incorrect Fact[edit]

In the Safety section, the following line claims:

The first skydive performed without a parachute was by stuntman Gary Connery on 23 May 2012 at 732 m.

Gary however, did wear a parachute for this jump, but did not deploy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:559:C1:200:C188:48F:5822:153F (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Canopy Relative Work (CReW)[edit]

I have added a section on the discipline of CREW, I have only made a few CREW jumps myself and would appreciate anyone with more experience to add additional details.Psobchak (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever is added Psobchak please make sure it is supported by a reliable source rather than being original research based on personal experience.SovalValtos (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parachuting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)