text: Sometimes a reader knows more about a narrow subject than the author. When the author is in error about that subject, the reader may question the accuracy of the descriptions in the rest of the book. Such is the case here.
  
  I've written 123 books; several on parachutes and skydiving. I am a pilot, skydiver and parachute rigger; I know the sport and the industry. 
  
  The author wrote:
  
  "We use flat chutes as parasails." 
  What is "flat"? Square? Rectangular? Ram-air?
  A "parasail" is a kite and is usually under tow behind a boat. This sentence does not make any sense.
  
  "Four miles up, he pulled". That would be 21,120 feet. 
  The use of oxygen is not mentioned.
  
  "Ferocious, out of control spiral. One of the cells collapsed." 
  The collapse of a single cell will not cause a fast turn and the cell is easily re-inflated.
  
  "Corkscrewing caused the other cells to collapse." 
  Not likely.
  
  "Guide lines"
  An uncommon reference. They are referred to as control lines or toggles. 
  
  He jettisoned the main canopy at 15,000 feet. He freefell ten seconds and opened his reserve at 12,700 feet. The rest of the team on this HAHO jump would still be at 18,000 feet. 
  "Five minutes later." He would be at about 8,000 feet.
  "He estimated he had about 15 minutes of glide remaining."
  More like eight minutes.
  
   "He was so relaxed, he was startled to hear canopies fluttering all around him and the sound of men splashing down just under him."
  How did they all beat him to the landing area? They were 5,000 feet above him. 
  
  Fiction writers have a responsibility to make their descriptions accurate.
  When a reader finds obvious discrepancies in one area, it makes him or her wonder if the rest of the book is accurate.
  
  And, the writing is not creative.
  
  
  
  Dan Poynter
  The Parachute Manual & The Skydiver's Handbook. 
  DanPoynter@ParaPublishing.com. 
  