MakeItHappen

JFTC has similarities to 'someone pounding themselves in and asking for money'. Smoking is a known risk factor for cancer. There were many women from JFTC that smoke, including Mallory Tarcher and Lesley Gale. Someone lighting up and then asking for money for cancer research, jump money and hotels etc is saying 'Hey I want to find a cure for cancer and jump with your money so that I can continue on with my risky behavior'. The difference between the two is that one solicits money before a tragedy and one solicits money after a tragedy. When I lived in Tucson, there was a little boy that had some accident or disease or something. His parents went on the local TV stations to solicit money because their insurance coverage was used up to the maximums. The response was so great they had extra money. They bought some expensive car. That also got the attention of the media. Now there are laws (in AZ anyway) that say that the funds must be used for medical bills, not new toys. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I know. It is a freshman physics problem. Some of us even learned this in HS. Why don't you go ask John LeBlanc about how he sees what the Europeans are doing. It may be enlightening. USPA does have guidelines. See page 108 in the 2006 SIM or Online SIM. I'll even repost the graphic (that represents the USPA data). . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Are you just trying to be difficult?? Let's see, I just posted a graph that showed the relationship between speed and WL. Do I think they are equivalent? I'll leave it to the reader to decide. At the same time one can also say a generalized statement of 'Lower WLs result in lower speeds'. Just draw a horizontal line on that graph at several WLs. You'll see that the speed decreases for a given canopy as the WL decreases. WL = a v^2 where a is around 0.001111111 to 0.003333333 and a = f(Cl, Cd, glide angle, density) . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I can't believe you made this post?!?!?!?! You are one that is always advocating 'low WL, low WL' because the severity of the accident would be less. You are always advocating changing the severity of a hazard as opposed to advocating changing the probability of occurrence. Back when the US instituted the 55 mph speed limit during the 70's gas crisis, the NTSB noticed that the number of accidents where about the same, BUT the severity of the accidents was less under the lower speed limits. After the gas crisis disappeared, the speed limit remained low 'in the name of safety'. You jump to conclusions. First order of 'performance equivalency' is steady state descent rate. Then you can add in turn rates etc. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

You are contradicting yourself. Speed is the driving factor. The ROT is: Impact at low speeds = survival Impact at high speeds = death ROT = rule of thumb Nathaniel was citing something I posted. WL is proportional to speed squared. The figure shows three canopies that have such-n-such speed at such-n-such WL. (steady state) If you draw a vertical line at some speed, then you can say that those three canopies at those three WLs have equivalent performance (at least to the first order by matching steady state descent rates). The question is, why can't I say canopy 1 = Acme Student, canopy 2 = Acme New Guy and canopy 3 = Acme Super Swooper? The reason I cannot do that is because I do not know the lift and drag coefficients of each of those canopies. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

The fundamental flaw in new jumpers' thinking is that they assess the risk level improperly, not what risk level they are assuming. This picture has the current USPA suggested WL limits displayed with the risk zones noted. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Me neither. But tell me what you think B4 the next BOD mtg because I am one of the ones that fiddles with the lines. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Give it some time - it is a probability thing after all.... Besides the 'Red line' demarcation is the Germain rule: 0.1 per 100 jumps increment. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

It does matter - a WHOLE lot. Say I asked you to walk across a 10 foot long 2 by 6 board supported by two cinder blocks on level ground. Then I said 'Well, what if the there was a 5000 ft drop in-between the two cinder blocks?' Is the risk the same? Seeing or not seeing that crevasse means a whole lot. I'm pretty sure that the average age of USPA members has floated up in recent years. That is partially because the new jumpers (age-wise) take themselves out of the sport or out of life completely. So the average age creeps up because the new kids die off or cripple-off. We are going to see a missing gap of males that were born in 1975-1995. They keep maiming or killing themselves off. I started jumping when I was 24, so you really can't say that because I'm old (now) that I don't understand the new kids. I am an old skydiver because I actually followed advice from the elders. You know what, some of those 'elders' are still here today and still USPA members and still jump. They bring that age average up. Well, I added that later. Please re-read the post. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Aha, now we are getting somewhere

For background info see Risk and Safety About Risks For this case (WL restrictions), you'd want to avoid risks that fell into these categories: Severity - Probability Catastrophic- Frequent Critical - Frequent Catastrophic- Probable Critical - Probable Catastrophic -Occasional The 'problem' is that some people think such-n-such scenario (eg 100 jump wonder with a WL > 1.4) is ok and other people think it is not ok. Generally, it is the people with very little experience that think that is ok. One group may think that scenario has a risk of Critical-Remote, when it really has a greater risk. Now consider some lesser evils, say maximum 1.1 WL until 100 jumps. The place you draw the line is in the gray area. Not everyone will agree with what ever is used. Even USPA does not agree with Brian's chart from his book. That's why USPA recommends a maximum WL of 1.0 all the way to 100 jumps. Another consideration that we all should remember is that the probabilities change with training, experience level, number of jumps at a WL, canopy size, canopy type, DA, ability to judge distances and speeds, spatial disorientation, reaction time among other things. In a nutshell, for abc scenario ask what the severity of occurrence and the probability of occurrence is. Then find out where that lies in a risk matrix. Personal risk tolerance (aka safety) is not always the same as society's risk tolerance. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Fiddle with WL Limits Here's a simple model to allow anyone to easily fiddle with WL limitations. You won't get a headache by looking at a gazillion numbers in a table either. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I don't know how else to say this about these guidelines - today they are ARBITRARY borders - drawn by a few people here and there. See attached graphic of Brian's data. What we need to do is make these guidelines based on the physics of the problem, not arbitrary limits. That way the young whipper-snappers *might* believe what we are saying. I guarantee that the 'too kool to bounce sector' will NOT listen to gospel handed down by Moses, USPA or even Brian Germain. They will listen to physics. Those laws can't be changed - even by the most spectacular swooper. The missing pieces of data are the lift and drag coefficients. Once you know that you can create all sorts of contour plots to show progression or equivalent performance, weight and size dependencies. A nice to have would be the turn rate coefficients too. But we could start with Cd and Cl. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Performance Contours This is what is missing from the tables, recommendations etc about WL guidelines. We do not have a handle on what the 'equivalent performance' is based on canopy size and exit weight. The reason we cannot calculate that is because the lift and drag coefficients of canopies are not known to the public. Get the mfgs to publish that data and anyone can generate performance equivalencies. As a 'for instance', take a round canopy with a drag coefficient of 1.0. Anyone can easily generate equivalent performance contours. See attached figure. Until we can say that such-n-such WL on such-n-such size canopy is equivalent to another such-n-such WL on another such-n-such size canopy, we cannot have these arbitrarily assigned WL limits based on number of jumps (aka experience level). It makes no sense to do that. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

You know what is missing from this discussion is a Performance Equivalent function that depends on WL and canopy size. IOW, as Wendy pointed out, Brian's chart says, in effect, that a 200 lb jumper at 1.6 'equals' a 100 lb jumper at 0.92. 'Equals' meaning the performance, ie turn rate, descent rate, toggle responsiveness etc are the same under these two conditions. Performance iso-bars are conceptually represented in the attached figure. Consider the curves labeled Perf. 1, 2 and 3 to mean High, Medium and Low, respectively. We don't have this data. All we have is a few people that have jumped at several WL and their personal observations. What we need is actual data. Data from the 100 lb person jumping at several WLs as well as the 200 lb person jumping at several WLs. Also this is simplified in that canopy type is not considered. We could also generate performance iso-bars among WL, canopy size and type of canopy. Downsize progression is ill-defined too. The second figure represents several paths to downsizing. Most people have a 'step-function' progression in mind, ie increase WL by 0.1 for every 100 jumps. Is that really right? Does it fit the needs and skill acquisition of all jumpers? Now, that chart with LOTS of numbers will not go over with the average jumper. What might be a better representation is a simple graph. Graph reading is slightly easier than following that table with numbers. See the third figure for an example. What the actual curve on that graph is, is still open to debate. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Leave the political intepretations at home. The graphic comes from Formations for Dummies - used with expressed written permission. For a 2-way dive pool, check of the USPA Comp Manual - Collegiates section. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Geeeezzzzz…….. Here I have a legitimate concern and all you folks can do is make fun ;) What's with that? This question came about from two mini-projects. One is my prototype scoring system and the other is getting some copies of old 4-way dive pools to a friend. So I was leafing thru my extensive formation collection and saw that that two-way formation was called 'opposed stairstep' in the USPA Comp Manual. I thought that was strange. I always called that formation an 'open accordion'. In 4-way, there has been 'open accordion', 'stairstep', 'open stairstep', 'opposed stairstep' and 'compressed stairstep'. How many of you 'new guys' know that the 'satellite' was called a 'baby tooth' back in the 'olden days'? Do you know what a 'molar' was? I am serious here. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

What do you call the attached formation? . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

For 4-way vRW competitors. I was one of the judges for 4-way vRW at the 2005 US Nationals. It looks to be a really cool event. For those of you training hard for next year, how would you like an easy way to judge and record your training dive scores? I made up a little prototype scoring system for you to try out. There are links to some online dives that you can score. The true utility would be to use the scoring system for your training dives (played off your TV) and then look at the data over time. The data can be stored and then all sorts of averages, improvement metrics and graphs can be produced. Lemme know what you think…. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

PROTOTYPE Team Training Tool lemme know what you think....... yea ------- nay------- . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

This reminds me of that TV commercial where they had kids say they wanted to grow up and have a menial job. You mean one is not enough? My very first job was at the 'drinks' station at Burger King. They had TWO people doing this. One to pull the cup out of the dispenser and fill it with ice and another to fill it with what was ordered. It was so mindless they eventually let me do it 'all by myself'. Warehouse - very boring. And they wouldn't let you use a walkman. Today it would be an ipod. My first job with Intel was screening computer cards. Put the card in a tester, close the gate, hit a button, wait for the result, place card in good or bad box. After a few months they let me do trouble-shooting. Then it was not so mindless. I read schematics and replaced components. Solder gobblers are really interesting. That was cool. (Years) Later contract jobs with Intel were on the good pay, challenging level. Entering accounting data. That's something I still have to do. Boring, boring, boring. Video dubbing at Nationals. Got exciting when the leading teams came in with a dive. Nice conversations, nice people, low pay. The BEST mindless/ non-challenging job is one I have now. It' a volunteer position for about 4 hours per week. I pick up books at the library and bike them over to home-bound people. The conversations are great. The exercise is great. The pay is zilch- I'm not doing it for the pay. And a perk is that volunteers never get charged late fees. ;) I've spent ~$60 on inner tubes, tires, new rack (because the old one broke from the weight of the books) and two spiffy collapsible carriers. One woman gave me a See's gift certificate just b4 Thanksgiving. I passed it on to the person that pulled the media for her. I met the puller today. She actually went over to personally thank the woman. The home-bound woman is 95 and is lucid as any 20 yo. She lives in an upscale nursing facility. She's blind and needs a wheelchair to get around, but she is one of my favorites. During my 'mindless' visits I've helped her with replacing a battery in her hearing aid, helped with a phone call from a relative, helped determine that a tape was bad and that's why it was not playing right and learned that she occasionally goes gambling at the local casino. One day she asked me how old I was. She thought I was in my 20's. I guess I'm glad I have other work that is not totally mindless or unchallenging, so that I can do this mindless, albeit very rewarding job. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Here is a 'famous' picture of Ottley. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I recieved this email this morning from Chris Needels Bill Ottley passed away at 6:24 a.m.(eastern time) this morning. His suffering has at last ended; and skydiving has lost an icon. Bill had asked for a small memorial service followed by a very big party. And a very big party he will have indeed. In the near term he will be cremated, at his request, with the spreading of his ashes at a later date, most likely in conjunction with the service and the party. We love you, Bill. ............. Blue Skies Mr. Ottley. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Bill Ottley is now at The Washington Home 3720 Upton Street, N.W., Washington DC. 20016. His condition is deteriorating and the family asks that people reconsider visits. Bill has family and friends visiting him on a rotating basis. He is well-cared for. Chris Needels will pass emails or cards onto him. Cneedels_AT_uspa.org For the newer jumpers that do not know who Bill Ottley is, ask any jumper that has been jumping more than 15 years. Bill Ottley did a large number of great things for USPA and skydiving. He is one of the living legends. I haven't written a bio on him for ParachuteHistory.com because it would take too long. ;) There are many colorful stories about Bill Ottley. Just ask around. Bill Ottley was a USPA Director as well as the Executive Director. He brought USPA from the brink of bankruptcy to financial 'in the black' days that included purchasing the Duke St. property where HQ is today. The mortgage was paid off early and today is worth around $1.5M. (I'm not sure for sure, but I think the original purchase price was $385,000 to $400,000) Can I ask that a moderator make this thread a sticky? . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Mr. Ottley is still in the hospital. He is a little bit worse off. If you would like to send a message to him, please send it to USPA HQ. CNeedels_AT_uspa.org replace _AT_ with @ Bill enjoys hearing from fellow skydivers. Do it now. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker