winsor

"Facts" out of context can be indistinguishable from bullshit. For a superb treatment of the subject, get ahold of a copy of "Licit and Illicit Drugs; The Consumers Union Report on Narcotics, Stimulants, Depressants, Inhalants, Hallucinogens, and Marijuana - Including Caffein" by Edward M. Brecher (1973). The treatment is objective and the conclusions are sound. Blue skies, Winsor

I was told by someone who flew very well indeed that the way he had developed his level of skill was by flying without a jumpsuit. After spending a summer where he made a great number of jumps with no more than sneakers, shorts and a t-shirt (and a rig to round things out), he found that he could adapt to pretty much any jumpsuit in short order. Though I cannot claim his level of ability, I did take his advice and spent a decent amount of air time without a lot of cloth between me and the air. As far as what constitutes the ideal jumpsuit, it seems to be largely a matter of taste. I am not big on a lot of kentuckygofasters - I think booties, swoop cords and the like are a royal pain in the ass. If you are good enough, it does not seem to make a hell of a lot of difference from where I sit. Tiger Woods could do better on a golf course with croquet mallet than I could with the most expensive set of clubs made, and Jack Jeffries could fly circles around me if he was wearing some old coveralls and I had the most exquisite fitted jumpsuit in creation. I'm okay with that. A friend, whose normal shotgun is in the $10,000 range demonstrated that he could hit any target thrown with any shotgun in the rac. He could do just as well with a used $100 Sears bolt-action. When asked why he used a $10,000 shotgun when a $100 unit would do as well, his answer made sense. He pointed out that the reason he hit everything was because he did it an awful lot. Since he spent as much of his time shooting as he did, it made sense to use a shotgun that he liked. He really liked the Perazzi, and could afford it, so that's what he used. Thus, if you find a jumpsuit that fits well, flies well and you like it, that is the jumpsuit to own. If it happens to be inexpensive, so much the better. If it is expensive, but you spend a lot of time jumping in it, bite the bullet and get it. As an aside, if your choice of jumpsuit only lasts a season before it's ready to be retired, it may still be the appropriate choice. If you can afford it, simply replace the worn one with new and carry on. Quality is not always synonymous with longevity; some of the most expensive tires have only a fraction of the life expectancy of common passenger car tires - but they only have to last until the end of the race to pay for themselves. In any event, since it's your money, spend it on what you like. Blue skies, Winsor

He wont miss him. Bob will pound into Alex's reserve. We have a winner! Scenario 2: Alex and Bob go for a balloon jump from a heliostat (tethered balloon). They decide to do separate solo head down jumps. They are both good freeflyers and won't track or backslide inadvertantly. They have the same fallrate. The winds are light on the ground, but at all altitudes above 4000ft are around 20kt. In fact, they are the same strength all the way up to 13,000ft where they will exit. They decide they need 400ft separation at opening for safety. The balloon takes them to 13k and the pilot's GPS readout shows a groundspeed of zero (they're tethered), but the wind speed indicator shows 50 ft per second (just over 20kt). They calculate that a 8 second delay will give the required 400ft of separation (8 x 50 = 400). Alex jumps. Bob accurately counts off 8 seconds and jumps. After 10 seconds Alex's round reserve prematurely deploys. Bob is looking at the horizon in the opposite direction and doesn't see this. By what horizontal distance will Bob miss Alex?

BTW - I think our ground speed was 15 MPH (give or take) per the GPS. That is 45 seconds between groups for 1000 feet separation. This is separation WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND! Since separation at opening altitude is the key issue here, your separation wrt the ground is only important if everyone bounces - and then you have other problems than the proximity of the nearest crater. One problem people seem to have is that they leave out a key dimension in their analysis - time. If you draw the paths of two cars, and these paths intersect, does this mean they collided? Only if they were trying to occupy the same place at the same time; if one passes the point of intersection an hour, or even a minute, after the other has passed, you have no problem. Thus, you can have people exiting from an airplane doing 12 mph over the ground at 150 foot intervals as measured from the ground, and maintain 900 feet separation between groups IN THE AIR. Why? Because the airplane is going six times the speed through the air that it is over the ground, and the frame of reference that matters in freefall is the air, not the ground. If you have an airplane that can match the uppers for speed and remain stationary over the ground during jumprun (think AN-2), you can have zero ground speed and still maintain adequate separation between groups. In this case, everyone will open at the same point over the ground - but at different times. By the time one group opens, the previous group will have been blown 900 feet downwind and so forth. Once you have it figured out, it's pretty obvious. If you do not have it figured out, it is obvious that you do not understand to someone who does. Blue skies, Winsor

Seriously, I have no idea how this can help apart from giving you a rough estimate +/- 20 kts of the wind speed. That is assuming you can estimate it 100% accurately from looking at the ground track, which I doubt. Or do you have another eye of the airspeed and climb rate? I already know where the spot is before boarding the airplane. I know what I should see below me if I expect to get back. Paying attention to where I am in the air is just good practice, ensuring that when I exit I am where I want to be. Keeping an eye on the ground track enroute to altitude tells me where we are at any time. I have exited with a less than optimal spot when the starboard engine quit working and the pilot said "GET OUT OF MY AIRPLANE!" Knowing where we were at that time was very useful. We even turned a few points before opening and landing way, way off. If the green light comes on and I know we are a couple of miles short (or have gone past the DZ, as the case may be), I am a whole lot less likely to summarily exit if I am aware of that beforehand. Blue skies, Winsor

Only if you do it wrong. Only if you know nothing about art, science or spotting. If you know what you are doing, your last spot was good. You are NO BETTER than your last spot. Monumentally bad spots usually entail more than bad luck. Usually bad judgment is involved. I do not tend to get complaints, so I do not know first hand. If someone else spots badly, I know it before I get to the door, since I have been watching our ground track out the window all the way to altitude. If a jump pilot can not spot, I am happy to provide detailed instruction in the subject - to include a working demonstration. Good communication beforehand can help avoid both the problem and its aftereffects. Agreeing before boarding the airplane to, say, 8 seconds between group exits can lead to later groups getting out in a timely manner. If people insist on taking their sweet time in the door, I am happy to arrange the exit order so that they go last. If the people ahead of me have taken more time than will allow for a good spot, I will open high to make it back, land off, or ask for a go-around - depending on where I am and in what kind of mood I am. Blue skies, Winsor

That's probably reserve rides. More like deaths per participant. 30 dead/30,000 USPA members = 1/1,000

I think it is much more fun to agree with him completely and to see how far you can milk it before he realizes he is being played. "Do you have a death wish?" "Why, yes! Every time I jump I debate whether to hope for a malfunction or simply not open. Unfortunately, my parachute has worked flawlessly so far." "You are insane! You should see a psychiatrist!" "Yes, I know I am crazy. Do you think a psychiatrist could help me? I had pretty much given up hope. If you can recommend someone who can work miracles with people as far gone as me, I would be eternally in your debt." "Actually, I am so far out of touch with reality that I am not sure if I actually skydive or just imagine that I do. I lose track of the difference between dreams and what I have actually done these days." Just be careful that you do not actually get committed, and you should have hours of fun at his expense. Blue skies, Winsor

Very possible, that sounds familiar. But so does Helio Courior. Courier was recip, Stallion a turbine.

I vote for firing the reserve. Not everyone has an AAD, and counting on it is a generally bad plan. Proactive is better. A reserve is packed to open with a less optimal body position than is the main (in general). In addition, getting them under a 2:1 loaded main if they are unconscious does not improve their likelihood of survival enough for my taste. Blue skies, Winsor

My approach is to get the biggest reserve I can, regardless of the size of the main. I am partial to the Raven II, but have reserves that are much larger. My first square reserve was 175 sq. ft. I have put a couple of rides on it, and it worked fine. It is, however, the smallest reserve I have had to date. I have two rigs with 99 mains and 218 reserves (and others with less drastic a difference between the two). I have not had occasion to do personal CRW, and do not plan for that eventuality to any great extent. I will work it out if and when it ever happens. I have, however, been under a reserve enough times to have a strong opinion on the matter. When I yank silver, I want a nylon overcast to result. I consider a reserve on its own merits, and do not give much consideration to the size of the main. A good rule of thumb is to size a reserve like you would size a BASE canopy. Being able to land in full control in very tight spaces, with no outs, after opening low is a pretty good set of characteristics to have when you use your last option. BASE jumpers don't tend to load heavily; 0.7 pounds per square foot is about par. I have never heard someone land after a reserve ride saying that they intended to downsize their reserve. There may be some benefit to having a high-performance reserve, but I have no idea what it might be. Considering the pitfalls of a tiny reserve, I am not too curious what might be the up side. Blue skies, Winsor

A lot of them seem to be hell-bent on reinventing the wheel, but a surprisingly large percentage will take advice intended to keep them alive and healthy. After giving them a heads-up regarding something or another, I let them do what they please. I avoid being near the airspace of the ones who are totally out of control. Rather a few people have come up to me over the years and thanked me for something I said when they were low-time. I would rather make suggestions ignored 9 times out of 10 if it results in the 10th jumper being enough ahead of the curve that they walk away from a potentially tragic chain of events. In addition, some of the 9 responses that appear to be total indifference may well sow the seed of doubt that results in a gear change, a canopy course or whatever is necessary to improve survivability. Some of the people who have taken the time to say thanks later seemed to be studies in arrogance at the time. I certainly appreciate the people who have taken the time to help keep me alive over the years, and figure the best way to pay it back is to pass it on. Blue skies, Winsor

When the Air Force took over the Caribous they were in for a rude awakening. According to Army personnel who flew them before the Air Force took them over, the Army had a hard and fast rule - they would not operate at gross in and out of a field unless they had at least 900 feet of runway. Army pilots who flew with the Air Force on familiarization flights enjoyed the reactions of the Air Force people who were used to 8,000 foot runways 300 feet wide. After one demonstration of a "normal" operational landing, it was reported that the Air Force guy had to clean up and find a change of underwear before they took off again. Having watched Caribous at work, I can believe it. As an aside, what appears to be every viable Caribou airframe in existence is at, or has been funneled through, an operation with "government ties," located in Cape May, NJ. It would be great if they would occasionally release one or two to skydiving operations - particularly after conversion to the turbine powerplant. Blue skies, Winsor

120 mph is like 147 fps. This gives us 6.8 seconds per thousand. Under canopy we can expect something along the lines of 20 fps vertical speed. Split the difference between freefall and canopy and you get 83 some-odd fps, which gives more like 12 seconds per thousand. This is a more realistic working speed for deployment, since a constant deceleration model is a lot closer to the way MY parachutes open than is a thousand feet (or whatever) of snivel at terminal, followed by a WHAM that takes me to an open canopy. Thus, a 5.5 second opening burns up less than 500 feet, NOT 1000. If you have used up 1000 feet in less than 7 seconds after you attempt to deploy, it's time to go to silver. Blue skies, Winsor

I have been pondering this issue, and I think it is hardly as clear as it might seem. One of the phenomena I have witnessed over the years is the capacity of avaricious individuals to make available a product or service. It does not matter what are the properties of the product or service per se; it need only serve as the basis for profit. The adage of "build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door" is nonsense. While you are sitting around with your "better mousetrap," some huckster out there is selling millions of some "inferior" design. From the standpoint of skydiving, there is a long tradition of goniffs prevailing. I knew one of the Founders of the Sport, who was a Major Manufacturer and held patents that covered E) all the above. It was considered a given among those of us who knew him that he would steal any idea that wasn't nailed down - and a few that were. My favorite quote of his was "go ahead and sue me - my lawyers are better than yours." There was a running gag that, if you saw him at a party, you should tell someone about a "new idea" that you had such that he thought he was overhearing something that might actually work. The bets would then be how long it took before a patent application was filed, taking claim for this unworkable or terminally flawed idea. Having said all that, I must admit that he marketed the hell out of every idea he stole. The person from whom he stole the idea would likely have sat on it for years, preoccupied by coming up with other things, and it would never have been of use to the mainstream jumping public. Once the idea was stolen, however, it was available to everyone in record time. Even the person who came up with the idea in the first place was able to buy the product (he would, of course, be sued if he tried to use the design without paying royalties). This brings us to Skyride. While the Pioneer of the Sport to whom I referred (actually a competitor to Pioneer, FWIW) generally kept his larceny within the sport (there are notable exceptions with which I am familiar), Skyride is equal opportunity. Strangely enough, up-jumpers are the least likely to get screwed by them. One of the biggest problems in the sport today is that people who never would have considered jumping in the bad old days, and may well be constitutionally unsuited to skydiving in general, get their start in skydiving through Tandem. If Skyride manages to leave a really bad taste in the mouths of 99 44/100% of the tandem passengers that show up, perhaps it will serve to weed out the people that are better off with another hobby. In the same sense that it is better that people show up with the sure knowledge that they can die in a very immediate sense and then learn to control the risk, perhaps there is some advantage to having the first impression of the sport be that it is a bastion of lying thieves and then learn that this is but an aberration. Skyride sets the kind of baseline that makes everyone else look good by comparison. Yeah, they make a lot of money. However, in the same sense that I'd rather be broke than to be as fucked-up as Michael Jackson in order to be rich, I would not take the income that comes with Skyride's bad karma. But that's just me. Animal lovers are big fans of cute, cuddly animals. Pandas, Bambis and what have you can have people up in arms when they are threatened. OTOH, an ecologist can tell you that many of the less popular animals play equally important roles. Vultures, jackals, hyenas, maggots and other parasites and carrion eaters are critical to the ecological balance. In addition, it may be noted that parasites are most attracted to a healthy host. Thus, given that skydiving is an inherently Darwinian activity. Skyride may be seen as a natural outgrowth of the development of the sport (in the same sense that Polio is entirely natural). Blue skies, Winsor

people have bounced and lived Oh, I'd say "survived." Natasha: "Boris, darlink! You're alive!" Boris: "This is living?" BSBD. Winsor

With low jumps, at low altitude and particularly if unplanned, I strongly advise against it. Having said that, it can be a lot of fun. This spring I was on a two-way, and we hadn't worked out quite what was the game plan by the time we got to the plane. Lee suggested doing head-down, and I kind of wimped out, since I wasn't in the mood or something. We settled on freeflying the exit, docking, and doing some drill thereafter. Once we docked we had solid high grips, so I said what the hell. I did a stand-up and fruitlooped us around into a head-down - which we held to 4,500 feet. Part of my decision to go for it was knowing the person with whom I was jumping. Lee has been jumping since Nixon was in charge, is way heads-up and has rock-solid skills. He also has the requisite sense of humor. A number of factors led me to go for it: -We had plenty of altitude, we were doing a two-way and we both had CYPRESes. -We had high grips and good eye contact, so he wasn't blindsided. -I have jumped with him for years, and have complete trust in his abilities. -Since he had suggested a head-down dive in the first place, I did not think he would object to a change in game plan that resulted in our going head-down. Factors that add toward a disastrous outcome of fruitlooping include: -Low jump numbers (of either party). -Being fruitlooped out of a formation -Doing so at breakoff. -A sizable formation, so that the risk of collision due to the lack of separation is increased, both for the fruitlooper and fruitloopee. There are rather a few maneuvers that will never be part of the Dive Pool at Nationals, but can be a lot of fun. Oppenheimers, Saucer & Teacups, Horny Gorillas, Tubes, Steamrollers, Shuttlecocks and Fruitloops are but a few. The key is to take into account that these are nonstandard skydives, and to plan accordingly. If everyone is on the same page, odds are you will have a grand time. If someone is dancing to a different drummer, things can go to hell fast. If you are unsure of the procedure for doing something, ask instructors and/or people who have been around a while and survived. Do not be too eager to buy it if someone says "no problem," but listen if they say "bad plan." Blue skies, Winsor

Though aircraft accidents have a major influence on the relative danger of the sport, they are generally addressed as a distinct category. Such incidents as the Perris Twin Otter, Hinckley Twin Beech, West Point Queen Air and the like would greatly skew the statistics, and obscure the fundamental trends related to skydiving. In a sense it is illustrative to have fatalities broken down by aviation/parachuting - it can bolster the case that, dangerous as skydiving may be, your odds are often better if you can exit the aircraft before it returns to terra firma. Blue skies, Winsor

Though .22LR can be the hallmark of a pro, there is a significant difference between a suppressed Woodsman and an RG14. When I heard that he had used an RG, I was surprised that the damned thing kept going BANG without jamming. Had Reagan's press secretary succumbed, the press secretary's wife would not likely have vented her sexual frustration in the "gun control" arena from that point onward. Oh well. Blue skies, Winsor

I seem to recall that there was a bit of controversy surrounding that particular exercise (I know, Roger and controversy? No way !) Rumors were Roger pulled the engine without telling anyone, many freaked out and thought they were going to die, etc. Anyone have details ?? I was on an airplane on which Roger arranged to have an engine "fail," but it was a non-event. Kevin Gibson, OTOH, once reached into the cockpit and killed power on BOTH engines at about 12 grand. Somehow he managed to avoid criminal charges - but he was coldcocked after landing by one of the unhappy people on the load. Blue skies, Winsor

Wrong. Handles obscured by suits can easily take the rest of one's life to find - and have done so.

If the only way you might consider cutting away is in a sequential fashion, maybe. I highly recommend keeping the decision tree simple for emergency procedures, and think Chuck's approach is spot-on. If I have not initiated deployment at all, I go straight to silver. If I have initiated any part of the deployment sequence, my hands are immediately on their appropriate handles exactly as they have 10,000 times before. From my experience, it takes the same amount of time to cut away and deploy the reserve as it does to just deploy the reserve if the two handles are pulled simultaneously (a gunslinger cutaway). If you have trouble multitasking to that extent, pulling silver and immediately thereafter pulling the cutaway may be a solution. In any event, I highly recommend ensuring that the main will simply go away if it decides to deploy at some time after going to reserve. I know of a number of cases where a recalcitrant main finally decided to deploy, and none of them had unpleasant outcomes when the cutaway handle had been pulled. OTOH, I know of all too many cases where people have been maimed or killed when they found themselves doing impromptu personal CRW and things went wrong. Having seen the results of that approach, I do not consider the appropriate course of action to be subject to debate. Blue skies, Winsor

The reason why we do not wait is that the results of the investigation are incidental to the purpose of this thread. If I hear something that helps keep me from dying at some time in the future, I do not think I will begrudge the information if it turns out to have had little to do with this incident in particular. The official investigation is all well and good. The information contained in the Official Report (assuming it ever gets disseminated) will likely be quite useful. However, the fact that Trained Professionals (tm) are on the case does not by any means suggest that there is nothing to be gained by discussion of potential failure mechanisms that can lead to similar outcomes. If you want to wait for the Official Report, knock yourself out. I doubt if it will serve my purpose as well as will the insight provided by the unfounded speculation found here. BSBD, Winsor

This one of the reasons I have 99 sq. ft. mains with 218 sq. ft. reserves. Even if I am conscious under reserve, there is a chance that I went to silver because of a broken collarbone or something similar (breaking a collarbone in a blown exit or good old fashioned funnel is easy). If I can't steer or flare properly, I want a nylon overcast above me. Another consideration is that a CYPRES is going to have me open at 750 some-odd feet. Even if I can steer and flare, there is a good chance that I am going to be somewhere that does not have the requisite runway area for landing any kind of HP canopy. Being under something I can sink into someone's back yard, or land in trees without getting killed, is a good thing. Little reserves are better than a PLF at terminal, but there are circumstances under which the results are about the same. Blue skies, Winsor

Having lived in a variety of rural areas, I can attest to the fact that the most successful farmers I know have very extensive formal education. Agribusiness involves a solid background in Botany, Chemistry, Meteorology, Logistics, Economics and Business. The farmers who are not dirt-poor can give you the economic breakdown of using various crops, seed, tilling techniques, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. They can tell you the most effective means of hedging their investments against either crop failure or bumper crops with depressed prices. I guarantee they did not pick up these skills by pondering these concepts while working their fields; they typically have degrees from focused programs at accredited universities. Blue skies, Winsor