robinheid

+1 one time I jumped on a load with no helmet, shoes or altimeter and as the plane took off, two kids in the back got wild-eyed and one said, "Dude you forgot your ALTIMETER!" The other said, "You can borrow one of mine!" Then I noticed that each one of them had two visual altimeters and one audible -- and one of them had TWO audibles. I said, "Thanks, but I still have two" and pointed to my eyes. They looked at each other as if they'd never heard of such a thing.... using your eyes to tell how high you are - preposterous! Great basic training this sport is providing, isn't it? Really, everyone, if you can't tell where you are in the sky, sell your rig and start bowling. As for the original poster and poll -- you don't "try to judge the altitude." There is no try, young skywalker. There is only DO... or do NOT. And the way to DO is to practice. As another poster said, notice how stuff looks on the way to altitude. Look at the hangar and other objects (people, planes, buildings, roads, runways, whatever), then estimate the altitude, then look at your altimeter and see how close you are. Do it at 500 feet, at 1000, at 2000, at 3000... with practice, you will indeed be able to know at a glance how high you are. you can practice in freefall too. look down, estimate the altitude, then check your altimeter to see how close you were. Your peripheral vision of the horizon is also a huge altitude indicator and not as subtle as object-on-the-ground size. start noticing where the horizon is when it's breakoff time. finally, "realise" that training yourself to SEE how high you are instead of relying on a machine is not very hard to do, and you don't need hundreds of jumps to get it right. JUST DO IT and you'll get better and better at it -- to the point that you'll be able to hop on a plane without a machine altimeter and not give it a second thought until the kids in the back freak out and offer you one of theirs. 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."

Unless they do something stupid at the last second that was unexpected and not avoidable. Then you're not flying right. Bullcrap. With all your bragging about how long you've been around the sport, you should DAMN well know that 'shit happens'. By your 'logic', since Roger Nelson was 'flying right', he should have seen the other guy 'coming from far enough away' to be able to avoid the collision. By your 'logic', since Bob Holler was 'flying right', he should have seen the other guy 'coming from far enough away' to be able to avoid the collision. Etc, etc, etc... Fail. Why, yes...yes you did. Logic fail. A panic turn is an attempt to avoid a collision. Since a panic turn is an attempt to avoid a collision, your supposed point is equally valid for the incidents that took Roger and Bob's lives. QED. Please quit stroking your own ego. Sigh... As I understand it, neither Roger nor Bob saw their collisions coming, so no "panic" turn could be made, which means their collisions are not relevant to this narrowly focused tangent within the larger thread about student and/or low-timer use of Stilettos -- whether, in responding to seeing someone cut you off, you make a "panic" turn that could have more injurious consequences under a Stiletto than under a lower performance canopy perhaps better sutied to EFS4LIFE's skillset. Which, of course, is a valid point that Timmyfitz made, and with which I have no argument. Absolutely, the higher performance the canopy, the easier it is for any pilot, low- or high-time, to enter too much input during emergency maneuvering -- and it is more likely that a low-timer will "over-input" in that situation than a more experienced jumper. The thought behind my "flying right" comment is that, if you use good collision avoidance techniques throughout your descent, you should never end up in a situation where you have to "panic" turn to avoid someone that you see cut you off. Neither Roger nor Bob saw their collisions coming, so a "panic" turn was not part of the equation -- which, again, means their collisions are not relevant to this narrowly focused tangent within the larger thread about student and/or low-timer use of Stilettos. I am now officially done with this thread. It's been fun and there's been some good thinking and discussion, but now I must get back to the real world. Love to all, see you at the DZ. 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."

You are claiming that you can "fly right" and be able to avoid having to do a turn to avoid a collision. BUT you are claiming that you can "fly right" and not be able to avoid a collision. Fail. I didn't claim Roger or Bob were flying right or state whether or not they could have avoided their collisions; you did. I have remained silent on those points because their collisions are not relevant to this narrowly focused tangent within the larger thread about student and/or low-timer use of Stilettos. Please stay on-topic. 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."

Check back with me on that after you get a few more years time in grade. 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."

Unless they do something stupid at the last second that was unexpected and not avoidable. Then you're not flying right. Bullcrap. With all your bragging about how long you've been around the sport, you should DAMN well know that 'shit happens'. By your 'logic', since Roger Nelson was 'flying right', he should have seen the other guy 'coming from far enough away' to be able to avoid the collision. By your 'logic', since Bob Holler was 'flying right', he should have seen the other guy 'coming from far enough away' to be able to avoid the collision. Etc, etc, etc... Fail. The logic goes this way: Timmyfitz said low-time Stiletto pilot efs4life might make a "panic" turn if someone cut him off at the last moment. I said: "If you're flying right, no one should ever cut you off because you should see them coming from far enough away to not have to make a "panic" turn in the first place." Neither Roger nor (as I understand it) Bob were cut off -- so their collisions are not relevant to this narrowly focused tangent within the larger thread about student and/or low-timer use of Stilettos. Please stay on-topic. 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."

If you think, for one second, it's not possible for someone to sneak up on you, you're a danger in the air. You should fly, always, like everyone is trying to kill you. That said, it's totally possible to 'fly right' and have someone place you in harms way without you knowing until it's actually happening. Ian If you're flying right, no one should be able to sneak up on you. 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."

Unless they do something stupid at the last second that was unexpected and not avoidable. Then you're not flying right. 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."

Person A "flying right" has no bearing on whether person B may do something stupid at the last second. It helps that person A is predictable to other jumpers but it does not prevent other people from making mistakes. Shit can still happen at the last second that is out of jumper A's control and may panic turn. Enough said. Poorly said, even if the subject is every kind of "stupid... s---" that can happen. Being a noob yourself, I guess you've never heard of the piloting maxim: "It takes two to collide but only one to avoid." Moreover, no matter how hard you try to twist, backtrack and ignore what you yourself said to start this tangent within the thread, the the subject is not every kind of "stupid... s---" that can possibly happen; the subject is the very specific SS of being "cut off" and thus doing a "panic" turn. So I say again: If you're flying right, no one should ever cut you off because you should see them coming from far enough away to not have to make a "panic" turn in the first place. And I add now: "Flying right" includes always having your head on a swivel so that you always know where every other canopy is, thereby minimizing or eliminating the chance of "s--- still (happening) at the last second that is out of (your) control" so that you "panic" turn. Which brings me back to EFS4LIFe and his experience level. One of the really - really - important elements to flying right is knowing how to fly a standard, aircraft-like pattern with at least a downwind, base and final leg. Several things happen when you fly a good pattern: a) it's easier to land where you want; b) makes it easier for others to see and predict your flight path; and c) allows you to shift some of your attention from where you're going to where everyone else is. This last point is among the most important. Years ago, I developed a "follow-the-leader" training program where low-timers would follow an instructor/coach through the pattern so that they could develop their "eye" for how a pattern looked - and develop confidence in how it worked. It was designed primarily to help low-timers with their navigation and accuracy, but it had an unexpected benefit too: my students reported that, by flying the pattern, they knew where they were going so they could pay more attention to seeing and avoiding "people getting in the way, anything." (Skydiving #181, p.28). This thread is so long I can't remember if EFS4LIFE has talked about that part of his training but, Stiletto or monster truck, flying a good pattern is a key component of "flying right" because it really helps low-timers and high-timers alike to fly their canopies more accurately and predictably, and minimize or eliminate the chance of a "panic" turn because somebody else did something stupid at the last second. 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."

If I'm "flying right" then I should have very little concern about other people that may cut me off at the last few seconds before landing, even though I saw them from far away? How did that work out for Roger, who was "flying right". as i recall, the subject was doing a "panic' turn to avoid someone cutting you off -- and as i also recall, roger was hit from above and behind so a possible "panic" turn was not in play and so that particular collision is not relevant to the point you raised. Try again. Your response to me was "if you're flying right, no one should ever cut you off". I just pointed out that you can fly right(Roger), see people coming from far away and shit can still happen at the last second that is out of your control. Try again. (a canopy can not stay fully inflated after it has been cutaway) Roger was not cut off. Roger didn't see it coming. Ergo, his collision doesn't fall within the parameters of either my "flying right" comment OR the point you're trying to make about a "panic" turn to avoid someone you can see, who cut you off. You are saying Roger was flying right. Roger didn't see it coming. Shit did happen at the last minute that was out of his control. Thank you for agreeing. (a canopy can not stay fully inflated after it has been cutaway) I did not say or imply that Roger was flying right. I said: Roger was not cut off. Roger didn't see it coming. So give it up, get back on topic, and maybe even man up and admit that you tried a cute little word game and got caught with your pants on the ground. 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."

Except that neither of you has paid your dues in this area. John isn't a skydiving instructor, and neither of you has the CURRENT experience under the multitude canopy designs and loadings that I would consider needed to advise this jumper on the sensibility of his choice, ESPECIALLY given the lack of first hand knowledge of the situation. MY assessment of this thread is influenced by my desire to not keep having to drag broken novices from the landing area. Flame away. Sorry to pour cold water on your flames, but neither of us "advised" EFS4LIFE to do anything -- we simply spoke of our related personal EXPERIENCE, which, by the way, far - far - exceeds yours. One thing I might suggest to you given your continuing ambition to be a leader of this sport is that you dispense with the silly little non sequitur PAs and address the points I made about the psychotic structure of our "current" training program, as constructive dialogue in this area would go much farther to further your "desire to not keep having to drag broken novices (and skygods) from the landing area." Finally, when you have more time in grade to go with your considerable time in the saddle, you might be amenable to hearing what people actually say. As the late great John Wooden put it, "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." p.s. Thanks for the compliment about EFS4LIFE being me using an alias... I WISH I could write coherent, detailed fiction that fast. 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."

If I'm "flying right" then I should have very little concern about other people that may cut me off at the last few seconds before landing, even though I saw them from far away? How did that work out for Roger, who was "flying right". as i recall, the subject was doing a "panic' turn to avoid someone cutting you off -- and as i also recall, roger was hit from above and behind so a possible "panic" turn was not in play and so that particular collision is not relevant to the point you raised. Try again. Your response to me was "if you're flying right, no one should ever cut you off". I just pointed out that you can fly right(Roger), see people coming from far away and shit can still happen at the last second that is out of your control. Try again. (a canopy can not stay fully inflated after it has been cutaway) Roger was not cut off. Roger didn't see it coming. Ergo, his collision doesn't fall within the parameters of either my "flying right" comment OR the point you're trying to make about a "panic" turn to avoid someone you can see, who cut you off. 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."

And here is the one guy that the young guy looks for for verification and validation of his less than smart acts. In school... the same place you need to go to learn to read. If you go to PD's website, it lists what sizes and wingloadings are appropriate for the Stiletto. They don't recommend the Stiletto 190 until *INT* experience and then only with an exit weight of 152 pounds. Exit weight of 152 pounds with 30 pounds of gear and clothes = 122 pounds for the jumper. See if you take 152 - 30 you get 122. Now I said "about 120 pounds"... But I did say "about", when I could have said 122 pounds exactly. So go read it again..... Okay, I follow you now... sorry about that. I did in fact miss the fact that you were talking about PD recommendations, not the 1:1 wing loading of efs4life's stiletto. You still have a math problem, though; both Kallend and I are people to whom the young guy can look for verification and validation of his (canopy size and training choices) and last time I checked, 1 + 1 = 2. 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."

If I'm "flying right" then I should have very little concern about other people that may cut me off at the last few seconds before landing, even though I saw them from far away? How did that work out for Roger, who was "flying right". as i recall, the subject was doing a "panic' turn to avoid someone cutting you off -- and as i also recall, roger was hit from above and behind so a possible "panic" turn was not in play and so that particular collision is not relevant to the point you raised. Try 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."

No I wouldn't -- I would consider that to be an outSTANDing DZ and i congratulate the DZO and staff for understanding what Roger was trying to get across. Do I assume correctly that your DZ proportionately ramps up the canopy/equipment training component to accommodate the heavier wing loading? And are they jumping f-111 or ZP? tell us more! Unfortunately, DZs like yours are still the exception rather than the rule, but it's nice to know that SDC is no longer the only one. 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."

True enough, but that is due not only to the fact that even a lightly loaded Stiletto is generally "too much" for a student but because the psychotic structure of our current training system puts learning freefall fun ahead of of learning parachute survival, regardless of what the new training syllabus says. In any dangerous endeavor, you learn survival skills first, then the fun stuff. Our sport does it backwards... and that's why so many people -- highly experienced and inexperienced alike -- kill themselves under canopies for which their jump numbers (but not knowledge base) supposedly qualify them to jump. And what's ironic to the silly extreme about this freefall-obsessed training system is that it not only shortchanges parachute survival training, it screws up the freefall fun training! In fact, one of Roger's main reasons for going to ZP canopies was that students could then jump a container system that fit them, so that when they did their freefalls they were flying their bodies, and not also fighting around a rig that stuck out into the airflow because it's so big because they jump massive canopies because current training is freefall fun-obessed instead of parachute survival focused. And a key reason Roger succeeded is that his course did in fact spend a lot more time on teaching people to navigate and fly their canopies. So instead of nitpicking which canopies are or are not appropriate student canopies, we should be discussing the 900-pound pile of male cow poop in the room that is the counterintuitive and utterly psychotic training structure that makes it "a bad idea" to use anything but monster canopies and the monster rigs that go with them. 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 dude, you make more sense than anyone on this thread. They are simply so overwhelmed by their bias against anyone with "low" jump numbers having anything remotely valid to say that they totally miss pretty much everything you said, and went off on tedious polemical tangents rife with unwarranted assumptions and unsupportable premises, all camouflaged by relentless references to their own allegedly superior knowledge and experience. It was really pretty funny to watch you kick all of their butts... and they didn't even notice. Now to add some facts to this discussion: 1) SDC never used Stilettos for first-jump students. Where this notion comes from is probably due in significant part to fuzzy memories about a Roger Nelson interview or article I did for SKYDIVING Magazine about his Sabre program (14,000 student jumps, two ambulance rides). Roger talked about how if he had his druthers, he'd put them on Stilettos instead of Sabres because the Stiletto was a superior canopy. I can't recall why he didn't but that is mentioned in the interview/article too. 2) I don't know where "Ron" learned to do math, but 120 pounds + 30 pounds for gear and clothes = 150 pounds divided by 190 = .789 wing loading. It's 160 + 30 = 190 = 1:1 unless somewhere in there I missed a mention that you jumped a 150. 3) I currently jump a Stiletto 135, loaded at 1.3. It is a perfect canopy for me right now because I'm not jumping enough these days to feel comfortable on my FX-104, much less my Velocity 84. I have a lot of jumps on that canopy and it twists up now and then, but it does not spin up -- because of the lighter wing loading, it turns slowly or flies straight as I untwist. It also, as I believe "Ron" said, has a great glide ratio (esp. if you use rear risers instead of light brakes to flatten it out more), has a quick recovery arc, and a wide flare range with a lot of room for adjustment. Also, I got my PRO rating on this canopy in ten straight jumps when I had only 11 total jumps on the canopy when I started, so it's an exceptional demo canopy because you can land it on a dime and it can still penetrate significant winds. 4) One of the self-absorbed "experts" on this thread posed the polemical response to to your "I don't hook turn" comment with some nonsense about what if someone cuts you off at 50 feet and you have to "panic" turn or some other such silly objection to your flat statement that you don't hook turn. Well, gee, aside from the fact that this polemical hypothetical is akin to the whuffo question "well, what happens if your reserve doesn't open either," there are two other points: 1) if you're flying right, no one should ever cut you off because you should see them coming from far enough away to not have to make a "panic" turn in the first place; and 2) as the creator of the Stiletto John LeBlanc likes to say, "never forget that you can flare in a turn and turn in a flare," which thereby solves the dilemma posed by the whuffo-like hypothetical. 4) Dude, you make an excellent point that instead of downsizing as jumpers get more experienced, they should move to a higher-performance canopy with the same wing loading, so that you can continue learning more stuff without giving up the safety margin represented by the higher number of square feet aboe your head. I don't recall if you thought this up yourself or were quoting someone else, but it makes perfect sense to me and I don't recall a single person acknowledging this to be a sound idea -- or arguing against it. As someone condescendingly "reminded" you, the physics don't change and all the hoo-hah aside, more square feet above your head is essentially always better when you make those inevitable mistakes that come no matter how many jumps you have -- or how smart you think you are because you have more jumps than the person you're talking down too. I can tell you that two friends of mine who were very experienced jumpers with thousands of jumps and mad skills to boot are now dead because they refused to listen and learn from people with fewer jumps than they had, and not nearly the skillset, but who nevertheless knew stuff that they didn't. Instead, they showed the same 'tude displayed by some of the jump-number gods on this thread. Now for some full-circle final perspective on this thread: When Roger Nelson 20+ years ago decided to put his first-jump students on squares, he had to get a waiver from the US Parachute Association, which at the time had a BSR that no one should jump a square until they had at least 100 total skydives. Naturally, the UPSA board of directors freaked out at this proposition and basically said all the things the jump-number gods parroted in this thread about you jumping a Stiletto. So Roger asked the BOD what canopies they jumped and of course the answer was "squares." So then he asked why, and of course the answer was "because they are better than rounds." To which Roger replied, "Okay, I'll put my students back on rounds when you all go back to jumping rounds." He got his waiver. So all of this male cow poop hurled at you is just the same old male cow poop that's been hurled for year upon year upon year. But that's to be expected. As Carl Boenish liked to say about new ideas: There are three stages: 1) It can't be done. 2) It's too dangerous. 3) We knew it all the time. 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."

that's what they said before Chuck Yeager did it in the x-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."

actually, this scam has been around for more than a year... and it's usually tied to Facebook, though it may have spread. Do any or all of you on this thread who got the BC email use Facebook? Here's the earliest story I found on it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1084669/Facebook-hijacked-cyber-criminals-scam-friends-cash.html 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."

Canopy's don't stay fully inflated after they are cut away. Nice try though. As long as we're nitpicking... nice try on proper spelling and punctuation. I fixed it for you: Canopies don't stay fully inflated after they are cut away; nice try, though. I also notice you didn't excerpt the T-10 comment; are you going to gainsay that one too - or just the one for which I don't have a photo? 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 I watched one of those too. lady with 300 jumps opened at 3K in a spin (blown toggle from what i could see) but instead of taking even two seconds to assess, she just chopped it after two revolutions -- and then her still fully inflated canopy rotated slowly all the way to the ground. and i have a photo of a completely open T-10 canopy (had cross connectors) landing in the pea gravel in Colorado after a student cut it away for no reason (Tim Monsees got mucho props for spotting THAT one). p.s. OP, you're welcome. Glad we could help. Enjoy your jumping! 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."

Keep in mind that this number is skewed by the higher rate of malfunctions on high-performance canopies. As another poster said, there are people with thousands of jumps and not one total or partial malfunction. And being one of those guys who flew Para-Commanders in the early days when you had to have at least 100 jumps before you could even jump a square, it was an amazing thing to see how malfunctions dropped precipitously after everyone started jumping squares. I remember when weeks and even months would go by without a single malfunction at the DZ. And I remember when that trend reversed as first high-aspect ratio canopies (long span, narrow "chord") - then teeny-tiny high-aspect ratio canopies started appearing. So your chances of having a malfunction on the bigger, lower-aspect-ratio canopies you'll be jumping as a student and low-timer will be much less than the 1-in-602 figure... unless of course you flail a lot on opening, because a major factor in partial malfunctions is an asymmetrical and/or unstable body position at pull time. Then all bets (statistics) are off. 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."

I don't really get that part. If an astronaut ejects from an orbiting spacecraft, they would still need to bleed off the 17,500mph orbital speed somehow. It's not the same as falling straight down from a balloon (which is admittedly very difficult from that kind of altitude to begin with)... The comment you cite does not include the word "orbit" or any reference to speed. This is about launch and return malfunctions. NASA guys can correct me if I'm wrong but as I recall, the Challenger astronauts were all alive inside the crew module from the explosion altitude of about 50K until impact with the water, way more than enough time to get out. The Columbia crew also had at least a couple of minutes warning that the wheels were coming off their buggy, but I don't know where they were in terms of speed and altitude so I don't know if they coulda gotten out of there or not. But it's inside-the-atmosphere egress they're talking about here, not orbit. I didn't read it that way, but I certainly agree that something for launch failures would be a good thing. Yes, the Challenger crew was alive until impact. There were emergency oxygen setups on each crew member and they were manually activated. The ones on the pilot and co-pilot could only be activated by crew members sitting behind them. That's one of the ways it was determined they survived the explosion. I don't think the Columbia crew survived to a slow enough speed for this type thing to work; such an event would probably require some sort of ejection capsule (IMO). The reason I read it as inside-the-atmosphere egress is: 1) being a press-release writer myself, it seemed that they were so focused on what they were doing it didn't occur to them that people looking at the bigger picture might misinterpret; and 2) I knew NASA tinkered with the idea for a while after Challenger. On of my favorites was a telescoping boom that came out of the side so the crew could kind of "fire pole" away from the orbiter -- or something. Given that the crew module survived Challenger, it seems to me that they could also just put a big parachute on THAT -- kind of like an F-111, where the whole cockpit came off - no ejection seats. 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."

I don't really get that part. If an astronaut ejects from an orbiting spacecraft, they would still need to bleed off the 17,500mph orbital speed somehow. It's not the same as falling straight down from a balloon (which is admittedly very difficult from that kind of altitude to begin with)... The comment you cite does not include the word "orbit" or any reference to speed. This is about launch and return malfunctions. NASA guys can correct me if I'm wrong but as I recall, the Challenger astronauts were all alive inside the crew module from the explosion altitude of about 50K until impact with the water, way more than enough time to get out. The Columbia crew also had at least a couple of minutes warning that the wheels were coming off their buggy, but I don't know where they were in terms of speed and altitude so I don't know if they coulda gotten out of there or not. But it's inside-the-atmosphere egress they're talking about here, not orbit. 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."

I don't know if it would help, but if I told some guys with guns "don't touch it!" I'd also tell them, "But feel free to mm wave scan it, x-ray it, swab it, have drug dogs sniff it, ...." +1 gotta give the guard dogs something to eat... plus it tells them you understand their job and a little sympatico can go a long way toward making your crossing civil. 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."