robinheid

Pssst... the vast majority of GA airports in the USA do not have control towers, so, uh, you know, there's like, you know, no way for the pilot to "DO WHAT HE's ****ING TOLD." Ergo, airplane pilots must THINK FOR THEMSELVES and make the same pattern/landing decisions as parachute pilots and. given wind and other weather variability, these decisions are sometimes really easy and clear-cut, and other times, not so much... you know, like, uh... when winds are so light and/or variable that "the means of setting the landing direction ON THE GROUND, that can be seen FROM THE AIR" do not work and, once again, the pilots -- airplane or parachute -- must make decisions based on their experience and knowledge of SOPs where they are operating. I know individual decisionmaking is a hard concept to get your head around when you live in a country where government officials oversee your trips to the loo, but so far in the USA there are still areas where you can do as you choose, not only "AS (YOU'RE) ****ING TOLD." SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Unfortunate title, good picture, don't be afraid to open it. Sorry, labrys, thanks Snowwhite. Filename changed. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

+1, DK! This is something everyone should do -- especially everyone who is an AFF baby -- especially when you're at peak currency and just did a comprehensive EP review, including down-and-dirty EPs. Really, dude, you rock, from your premise (you never know when you might end up low so be ready) to your preparation to your execution. Really well done -- and as I said in another post, you inadvertently created a perfect Exhibit A for the affirmative that pulling near the USPA-sanctioned MINIMUM CONTAINER OPENING ALTITUDE is not something you want to do routinely. BTW, another +1 for your patience and courtesy in responding to Phill's Parachutist letter. Not many of us who could pass the somewhat-low-altitude cutaway test would pass THAT one too! SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

+ 1... ...although it's hard to argue that he could have done anything better: 1. He lived. 2. He didn't hurt himself or anyone else. 3. He didn't damage his gear. 4. He didn't damage any property. 5. He created a great training video for properly handling a high-speed malfunction at the edge of the USPA-sanctioned opening envelope. 6. He created visual evidence for why it's a good idea to pull higher than USPA's MINIMUM CONTAINER OPENING ALTITUDE. 7. He shared it with everyone else so that we can all learn something. And for that -- the video of which was posted on OCTOBER 5, 2009, he becomes the subject of this whining letter published by Parachutist in the APRIL 2011 ISSUE: "Recently, I was on the internet and typed in 'low cutaways." I was quite disturbed and horrified in viewing one particular event in which a person pulled very low, opened up in line twists, cut away and landed in a residential neighborhood. On the video, he repeteated said, 'That was dumb.' "Although I wholeheartedly agreee with him, it does not excuse the matter. I've jumped at this drop zone many times before, and I know they took disciplinary action on the jumper. But I believe USPA should take action on those who endanger their own lives, my life and the lives of others. "Fellow skydivers, let be safe and check our altitudes." -- Phill Snyder, A-46387 April FOOL indeed. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Always smiling, always enthusiastic, always helpful, always ardent about life and family and skydiving and the Dallas Cowboys. RIP old friend. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

+1 to that. Whoa.... I'm getting dizzy. Whoa.... me too! SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Considering that the current problem is the cutter entraping the Locking Loop, and depending upon cutter location, that would not solve the current problem. You still would not get a canopy over your head. JerryBaumchen BINGO. Your response to me is another one of those posts predicated on the notion that AADs are an integral component of a parachute deployment system -- and literally as necessary to that system as a pilot chute, a bridle, and a ripcord. They aren't. Or to put it another way: The moment you discard the absurd notiion that an AAD is an integral and necessary component of a reserve parachute system, the easiest solution to "the current problem (of) the cutter entrapping the Locking Loop, and depending upon cutter location" becomes absurdly evident: get rid of the non-essential component, the design and/or placement of which interferes with the essential function of the system. To me, AADs are a "solution" in search of a problem and their presence in the sport has caused as many fatalities and injuries as they have prevented, and added an unnecessary level of complexity to reserve parachute systems that increases costs and the probability of error. What a great idea. Hi Robin, Not to split hairs, but by your logic, an altimeter is also something we should never jump with. Now, I agree that one shouldn't need an altimeter. Using your eyes is the best measure of altitude, and if you forget your trusty Altimaster on the ground, you should be able to jump anyway...but to suggest that we should do away with them altogether because they aren't an 'integral component' seems somewhat absurd. In my opinion, if one doesn't want to jump with an AAD, they shouldn't jump with one. But for those who want to, I don't think it hurts to accommodate it, provided it doesn't screw with the functionality of the integral components. Aside from AAD's, rigs also had to be changed to allow for ram-air reserves, which weren't necessarily integral to the system - they just improved the experience (admittedly, only in some ways). By the same token, accommodating something that a large number of jumpers may want to have as a last resort (i.e., in case of being incapacitated on exit or via a collision) doesn't seem to be a bad thing. then why did you even post this? The whole thread is about AADs that DO "interfere with (your) ability to skydive & deploy (your) reserve on (your) own." SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Considering that the current problem is the cutter entraping the Locking Loop, and depending upon cutter location, that would not solve the current problem. You still would not get a canopy over your head. JerryBaumchen BINGO. Your response to me is another one of those posts predicated on the notion that AADs are an integral component of a parachute deployment system -- and literally as necessary to that system as a pilot chute, a bridle, and a ripcord. They aren't. Or to put it another way: The moment you discard the absurd notiion that an AAD is an integral and necessary component of a reserve parachute system, the easiest solution to "the current problem (of) the cutter entrapping the Locking Loop, and depending upon cutter location" becomes absurdly evident: get rid of the non-essential component, the design and/or placement of which interferes with the essential function of the system. To me, AADs are a "solution" in search of a problem and their presence in the sport has caused as many fatalities and injuries as they have prevented, and added an unnecessary level of complexity to reserve parachute systems that increases costs and the probability of error. What a great idea. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Oh yeah, well....... -1 to you too! I mean, c'mon, that's like a base assumption that really doesn't need to be brought back up every post. Except it's NOT a base assumption if you actually read this thread, which contains a multiple posts predicated on the notion than an AAD as a integral component of a parachute deployment system. The most egregious examples of this mentality are the posts that propose changing reserve designs to accommodate an AAD. AAD function is being discussed as if AADs are literally as necessary to the system as a pilot chute, a bridle, and a ripcord. They aren't. So I will bring it up one more time: The easiest way to deal with the inherent failure rate of various AADs is to pull your effing reserve handle when you're supposed to -- and if you can't do that, then you shouldn't be skydiving. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

- 1 The easiest solution is to pull your effing reserve handle when you're supposed to. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be skydiving. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

+1 for content +1 for saying it so well in your second or third language. One other related point: Whenever you add another component or sub-system to a system, you also add its inherent failure rate, thereby increasing the overall system failure rate and decreasing overall system reliability. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Q: How do you say "cheap shot artist" in Australian? A: sumotony. Q: What do you call a logically challenged Australian? A: sumotony. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

+1 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

pussy. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

The late great and eloquently profane Al Frisby once said that every (bleeping) Cypres fire should be treated as a (bleeping) fatality -- and that the "firee" should be grounded until the investigation was complete and proper measures taken to make sure the "firee" does in fact "get it" that if the Cypres "saves" you, you were in fact an eyeblink from assuming room temperature. This is a far better tack to take than the current custom of congratulating people for losing track of time and altitude and, as one poster said, "treating it as no big deal." SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Apologies up front if what I'm about to say has already been discussed, but I didn't see it anywhere, so here goes: 1. The "minimum deployment altitude" is a misnomer because deployment starts with the pilot chute throw. The USPA SIM, Section 2.1(g) reads: "Minimum container opening altitudes above the ground for skydivers are: 1. Tandem jumps–4,500 feet AGL 2. All students and A-license holders–3,000 feet AGL 3. B-license holders–2,500 feet AGL 4. C- and D-license holders–2,000 feet AGL" Note the key words: minimum container opening altitude. Deployment altitude is 175-300 feet higher because it takes one second or more from the time you toss your pilot chute until the closing pin is extracted, thereby achieving CONTAINER OPENING. Refigure the numbers based on this FACT and suddenly a bunch of the discussions on this thread become moot. 2. When the 2,000-foot container opening altitude (COA) was first instituted in the 1970s (they used the word "pack" then), pretty much everyone jumped parachutes that opened in 200 feet, thereby leaving you with 1800 feet to deal with a malfunction -- and there was no delay from ripcord pull to container opening because they were one and the same. Nowadays, canopies can take from 200 feet to 1,000 feet to open, so the MINIMUM COA becomes a true MINIMUM and nothing else. There are a number of things in the SIM and among the BSRs that are questionable in design, focus and even intent, but the minimum COA BSR is not among them. It is soundly written and allows for all of the variations voiced by those posters who object to tinkering with it. I can't find it in the SIM but I recall that USPA recommends that you initiate emergency procedures by 1,800 feet. Okay then, if you choose to go by that recommendation, then figure out how long it takes your particular parachute to open and adjust your COA so that you do indeed have at least 1,800 feet left by the time your canopy has finished opening -- and of course, don't forget to add the pre-COA deployment time/distance into your equation. Bottom line: I concur with everyone who thinks that: * the current BSR should be left as is, * we should know enough about our own gear and personal capabilities to choose a personal COA that works for us, * we should coordinate with the DZ when our personal COA is outside the bell curve, and * we should generally refrain from dissing people who choose personal COAs different from our own. P.S. Kudos indeed to the lady who not only scratched off a big-way because her COA didn't match that required by the big-way, but apparently didn't even snivel about it. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Suck up! top Is it sucking up when it's TRUE? Great job, USPA selection committee. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Yo Robin, These people weren't wearing wingsuits. I'm sure even a superior intellect like yours understands the concept of context, no? (refer to thread topic in case you're lost). Excepting yourself, the thread has kinda carried the topic forward, right?. Sorry to interrupt your pontification; please do carry on. You're right, DWE, I do understand "context" in the way you mean it -- an excuse for saying the wrong thing, most often used by sniveling politicians... You said "parachute," not "wingsuit," and that's patently false (context notwithstanding). And you know, even if we grant you your snivel, you still got it wrong: "But he indeed is the first person to exit a moving flying aircraft without wearing a parachute, landing it, and surviving (height notwithstanding)." Because, of course, "context" snivels notwithstanding, saying "moving" instead of flying means that anyone with a parachute -- with or without a wingsuit -- who exited a taxiing airplane also qualfies under your definition -- and the list of those who did that before Stoney is even bigger than the list of "real" chuteless jump survivors I provided. In any event, to frame this in terms of real context, the whole thread had degenerated into absurdity and I was just having a little fun with your grammatically absurd contribution thereto. Kinda absurd that you took it so seriously -- but then, that's characteristic of noobs enamored of their mad skillz and vast knowledge... Having a bad day are we? Must be a rough one when you're dredging up old posts and editing them for spelling, grammar, and context. I feel fer ya buddy. There you go again, DWE: I just pointed out the factual errors in your declaration; you're the one who sniveled about the "context" of your own grammatical errors -- and I did not in fact mention spelling at all -- that was something you just made up out of the thin air between your ears... as usual. As you did about what kind of day I'm having. It's never a bad day when I get a chance to tweak another insufferable know-it-all noob who doesn't. Thanks for stepping in it again. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Yo Robin, These people weren't wearing wingsuits. I'm sure even a superior intellect like yours understands the concept of context, no? (refer to thread topic in case you're lost). Excepting yourself, the thread has kinda carried the topic forward, right?. Sorry to interrupt your pontification; please do carry on. You're right, DWE, I do understand "context" in the way you mean it -- an excuse for saying the wrong thing, most often used by sniveling politicians... You said "parachute," not "wingsuit," and that's patently false (context notwithstanding). And you know, even if we grant you your snivel, you still got it wrong: "But he indeed is the first person to exit a moving flying aircraft without wearing a parachute, landing it, and surviving (height notwithstanding)." Because, of course, "context" snivels notwithstanding, saying "moving" instead of flying means that anyone with a parachute -- with or without a wingsuit -- who exited a taxiing airplane also qualfies under your definition -- and the list of those who did that before Stoney is even bigger than the list of "real" chuteless jump survivors I provided. In any event, to frame this in terms of real context, the whole thread had degenerated into absurdity and I was just having a little fun with your grammatically absurd contribution thereto. Kinda absurd that you took it so seriously -- but then, that's characteristic of noobs enamored of their mad skillz and vast knowledge... SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Actually, there was a video of one guy jumping wingsuit from a helicopter, did some freefall and he landed it without opening parachute. He only got bloody nose if I remember correctly. Link to that video was somewhere here, but I can`t find it. Anybody else here remember it??? So, it`s already been done, stop trying

+1 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

+1 Bad idea. My bad. Next! SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

D'OH! That is why I said "you may need to leave the Class III weapons on the ground." Why are you making a federal case out of a statement with which you are in complete agreement? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

How about giving our "leadership" an idea -- you know, like ending the gulf drilling moratorium and drilling elsewhere domestically instead of leaving ourselves more at the mercy of oil supplies controlled by despots in the world's most unstable area. Oh wait... never mind. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Love the idea of jumping "combat ready"... But do not like the additional risk it would bring to the skydiving portion of the program. As a military jumper you know it is not as easy as just strapping a weapon on and getting out of the plane. I don't want to have to do the testing needed to ensure we know what freefall rigging will be safe enough to jump. And I don't want to have to give J&PI's to each jumper to check their equipment. Hadn't thought about the weapons containers and making them all secure. Way too big a can of worms... your plan be way better. I have done plenty of tactical shoots where we start without anything and have to accomplish a task to get the materials. I stand corrected (not doing much comp shooting these days). Yes, but depending on how I run it... We could change everything. 1. Say I want to land AT the range and time it all in one shot... (I really like this idea). This will limit to people with 200+ jumps based on the landing area and the "distance to obstacles" in the SIM. (Maybe higher, I have to take an S&TA out there and look around). However.... 2. Say I have the Accuracy portion at the DZ... Then I could let some "A" student participate. But would that kill the fun a bit? You could have two competitor classes: "the DZ class" (for A license and up); and "the range class," for peeps with the demonstrated parachuting skill set to land on the range. This way, you give competitors an option because not only will you have low-jump-number jumpers who need the "DZ class" option, you may well have experienced jumpers who aren't current enough or comfortable enough jumping into the range itself. It's more admin and so forth, but also gives more people to participate whose parachuting currency or jump numbers might limit them -- without killing to fun for the guys who CAN make it into the range LZ. Anyway, enough for now. It seems you have the development phase well in hand... and sorry if I missed it, but do you have a date yet? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."