robinheid

Oh brother, there you go, digressing again. True enough, but out of courtesy to you, I haven't pointed out what is glaringly obvious to anyone with a disciplined brain. The only viewpoints I refute are those that are invalid. The only comparisons and/or examples I "seem to not understand" are those that "compare" apples to oranges or are "examples" that do not apply. Thanks! Good luck with your debate training. 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."

As I do. I simply reiterated the part of my post #66 which agreed with yours: the safety of the plane is everybody's business who is on the plane - the pilot, the jumpers, the guy doing the climbing-pass exit. I just think that micromanaging jump runs and exits is categorically not the business of USPA. So please tell me: what part of my-post-that-agrees-with-yours is "evasive?" 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."

As I said in post #66: "...Blue Sky, Black Death does mean something; what we do is beautiful and very dangerous and wherever the Reaper lurks, we must in fact keep an eye out for each other as well as ourselves - which leads us once again back to enlightened self-interest; not only do you save your own life by remembering not to hit the tail on exit, you potentially save the lives of your fellow jumpers and the pilot and the aircraft as well." And I might add... personal responsibility also extends to the jumpers on the plane reminding the guy about to exit during a climb to not hit the tail. 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."

What a wonderful world it would be...but it's not. Let's face it, the more people you have skydiving, the greater chance you're going to have a dumbo on the plane. Many jumpers today have little interest in the finer points of the sport, and are interested in, for all intensive purposes, a carnival ride. They don't care to spot, study the winds, pack, or do anything but show up, jump, and spend the rest of their time on their Blackberrys. So you're also hoping to change the foundation of parachuting from freedom and personal responsibility into a nanny state with no freedom, no thinking, no personal responsibility? Yes, every turbine jump pilot is highly trained. In general you need 1000 hours to for the insurance company to sign off on you. On top of that, they all have eraned a commercial certificate, and made the transition into a turbine aircraft. All of this combined equals way more time, effort and training then anything in skydiving. Then why is it that we've had more fatal turbine crashes in the past five years than we have fatal tail strikes? (Not to mention the body count; as I recall, each fatal turbine crash killed a bunch, while each of the tail strikes killed just the idiot who didn't miss the tail when he jumped.) Dave, you digress. I said there are often more experienced pilots sitting in the back than at the controls. I said nothing about the physicists, software engineers, surgeons, et al. But they use exit training on every jump so your "example" is bogus. Then why do you seek centralized solutions to personal responsibility problems? Because such a centralized solution also eliminates the need for personal responsibility and the need to "look before you leap." Another bogus "example:" RSLs are not SOP. Another bogus "example:" AADs are not SOP. RSLs and AADs are not SOP so making level low-level exits SOP is not the same. ***Sigh, this is where it gets... complicated, not simple. As soon as the pilot changes the flight profile, s/he changes the turnaround time, which then ripples through the whole operation. You know, why is it that pilots do climbing passes in the first place? To keep costs and cycle times lower, so they can keep jump prices lower, so they can...you know, stay in business No way. No way in hell. The time difference between a climbing pass and a full cut is negligable. Thirty seconds, tops, from cut to throttle up. Okay, then, if it doesn't matter, then why do drop zones do 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."

And once a jumper leaves the aircraft, s/he's no longer an occupant, is s/he? So no-one else was in the plane after this jumper exited? I wonder why it was still climbing, then. The pilot is STILL responsible for the plane and any remaining occupants. And... so is the exiting jumper. The jumper's personal responsibility includes not just his or her own safety but that of his or her fellow jumpers. Remembering to not hit the tail when you jump (or dump your reserve or someone else's reserve into it) is part of enlightened self-interest, upon which most parachuting ethics are based - not centralized diktats. No... it's not. Digression on this thread continues to be the province of those who advocate centralized diktats over personal responsibility. There you go again, hoping to change the foundation of parachuting by demanding that centralized diktats trump personal responsibility. Because regardless of the change for which you hope, the bottom line is that each skydiver is in fact personally responsible for the safety of the plane and its remaining occupants, just as much as the pilot, just as much as the other jumpers. That's because Blue Sky, Black Death does mean something; what we do is beautiful and very dangerous and wherever the Reaper lurks, we must in fact keep an eye out for each other as well as ourselves - which leads us once again back to enlightened self-interest; not only do you save your own life by remembering not to hit the tail on exit, you potentially save the lives of your fellow jumpers and the pilot and the aircraft as well. 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."

Maybe, but we both know that they jump anyway. With that in mind... That is not the simplest solution. It might be the most idealistic solution, but not the simplest. That solution relies on EVERY jumper who exits on a climbing low pass to perform their exit correctly. Imagine that; expecting EVERY jumper to be personally responsible for his/her own safety from the beginning of the jump until the end. Right, every jump pilot is highly trained and experienced. Sigh, this is where it gets... complicated, not simple. As soon as the pilot changes the flight profile, s/he changes the turnaround time, which then ripples through the whole operation. You know, why is it that pilots do climbing passes in the first place? To keep costs and cycle times lower, so they can keep jump prices lower, so they can...you know, stay in business. Yo Dave, we're not talking about every jumper on every exit; we're talking about the occasional jumper on the occasional load who gets out low when every other jumper is going high. No... you're not. How hard is it for one jumper to absorb, retain and recall - before s/he jumps - to not hit the tail when they exit? And if we have people jumping out of airplanes who are too stupid to remember the aerial equivalent of "look both ways before you cross a street," then we have a much bigger problem with our training system than we do with climbing exits -- especially when the rest of the peeps on the plane are there to remind him or her to not hit the tail (this is known as enlightened self interest). And this has what to do with remembering not to hit the tail when you jump? Dave, I aprreciate your respect for jump pilots, but this is laughably and provably incorrect; there are many loads on which there are far more highly experienced pilots sitting in the back than there are at the controls. Which leads us full circle again: the simplest solution is for every jumper who exits on a low pass to take personal responsibility to perform their exit correctly. 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 think a little perspective is in order. While not completely unheard of, it is exceedingly rare for a person offered as an expert witness in a particular field to be rejected by the judge, that is to say, denied permission by the judge to testify as to his opinion in some manner of expert capacity. (Sometimes a certain expert opinion may be rejected as lacking adequate foundation, but it's highly rare for a person offered as an expert witness to be rejected out of hand by the judge solely on the basis of his qualifications.) This, of course, is false, Andy, and you know it. You impugn the entire practice of expert witnesses in all areas by making such a silly blanket statement that in fact has very little relation to the way it really works. But if that's the only way you can figure out to make a PA on me without "moderator" interference, then have at it. I just expected better from 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."

And once a jumper leaves the aircraft, s/he's no longer an occupant, is s/he? But I digress. The simplest solution of all is for jumpers to man up and take personal responsibility for not hitting the tail when they exit. Jumpers not smart enough or aware enough or competent enough to not hit the tail when they jump shouldn't jump. Blue Sky, Black Death means something, you know? 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 man. I thought that my theory, that is was a backhanded way to set the standard for all jumpruns to be flown with a full cut and level off, was a little far fetched, but yours is a downright accusation of a conspiracy against Bill Dause. Dave, I did not make a "downright accusation of a conspiracy against Bill Dause." I observed that deliberate malicious intent on the part of USPA to damage Bill Dause is one possible explanatioin for its action - the other being stupidity. I assigned equal probabillity to either possibility - and to yours, for that matter, which to me falls into the "stupidity" category by virtue of its backhandedness. Your "simplest solution" supposition may indeed be the actual answer, which of course means that it falls within the "stupidity" explanation rather than "malice." But until it is investigated, anything anybody says about USPA's motives and "thinking" in putting up its stupid ad is speculation. That is why I said it might be interesting to investigate it, though I didn't demand that either; investigations use up time and effort that could be better used on moving forward instead of looking back. d5533 base44 ccs37 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."

What if that was the intention? Maybe you're on to something here, Dave - though not in the way you outlined. Bill Dause has never joined the USPA GM program or required USPA membership and so he is in USPA's mind an infidel. So yes, it could well be that this wording was intentional as a way to chop off Bill's head and thus remove his apostasy from American skydiving. On the other hand, Mark Twain said "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity" so in this case it's hard to know which condition carried the greater weight. Seems to me, though, that it might be... interesting to investigate the genesis of this ad - who pushed for it, who approved it - and why. d5533 base44 ccs37 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."

This is even more off-topic than most of what you've been offering in this thread, but since you've clearly implied that Paul, Jan and I are clueless about the "modern age of skydiving," let me offer you some perspective and bring you back on-topic: 1) Paul, Jan and I have decades more experience in sport parachuting than do you. I also have military parachuting experience (as may Paul), and teaching experience of more than 30 years in parachuting and several other areas. Jan has coached and organized and otherwise been a teacher and a leader for longer than you have been skydiving. (I can't speak for Paul because I know him only through the clarity of his thought in the USPA Safety Day threads.) 2) While I did not support Jan's reelection to the board (because i think she's more effective as an independent agent rather than part of a group), I said then and say again now that she is an extremely knowledgeable, committed and capable sport parachutist and if "we" had another 100 like her, the sport would be much richer for it... in significant part because she thinks about things and understands the sport at multiple levels. Paul is also a multiple-level thinker and obviously a high speed guy all-around. 3) Again, I cannot speak about Paul but it is precisely because Jan and I are not "current instructor(s) dealing with the current wave of students, in this modern age of skydiving" that gives us the perspective you so clearly lack when it comes to discussing the "50,000 foot" issues associated with the Safety Day ad. You seem to be operating at about 3,000 feet - climbing exit altitude, you might say - which leads you to impugn us because we aren't "current instructor(s), as if that has any bearing on the discussion or the validity of our contributions thereto... and which apparently makes it hard for you to, uh... "understand the challenges" faced by DZ owners and others in sport parachuting for whom a 50,000-foot view is vital to their survival - and therefore the survival of sport parachuting. Because the bottom line is the bottom line: If the economic and legal climate makes it impossible to make money running a drop zone, then there will be no drop zones - and what USPA has done with this brain-dead declaration is make the legal climate more dangerous and less safe for DZOs. It is in fact Paul's concerns over these kinds of long-range ramifications that led to these threads, so I implore you to stop with the sly little PAs and start thinking about what "we're" trying to help you learn. d5533 base44 ccs37 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 have the number right in front of me, but as I recall, there have been at least as many walk-into-prop deaths in the last ten years as there have been tail strike deaths, so according to your "logic," loading with props spinning must cease forthwith - and a parallactically suspect photo of a "near miss" (with accompanying and equally suspect text) must be published in multiple issues of Parachutist. If you would, please, yes. Thanks. Oooops... you got that backwards too... twice. 1) Q.E.D. quod erat demonstrandum (kyoo ee dee) interj. 1. Which was demonstrated; - a phrase used after the conclusion of some line of reasoning, especially in mathematical or logical proofs. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co. 2) The primary way to improve safety margins is for the jumpers to pay attention to what they're doing, not demand that pilots make operational allowances to compensate for said jumpers' lack of attention. Q.E.D. +1 Glad to see that you finally noticed. d5533 base44 ccs37 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 the USPA has decided that it is an unsafe practice. If you don't like it, vote with your feet, and wallet. No one says you HAVE to be a member. I applaud the USPA for putting the safety of it's members ahead of a dollar. See my above point. So what will you applaud next: USPA deciding to put the safety of its members ahead of the dollar by declaring that loading jumpers with the props spinning is unsafe? Or that hot fueling is unsafe? Multiple arguments can be made that both of these also common, routine, and widely accepted practices are, in fact, too dangerous to do. Except for the key point that makes all of this climbing exit blah blah prima facie specious: Skydiving is dangerous. People die when they make mistakes, and sometimes even when they don't. Making sure you don't hit the tail on the way out the door is Personal and Group Safety 101 - just as is making sure you don't snag your reserve handle on the way out the door. It is patently silly to go on and on and on and ON about proportional blame and reponsibility and climb angles during exit... especially when most of the silliness is predicated on a parallactically suspect single photograph for which there is no supporting data except hearsay, and a database that says this is a minor problem compared to the primary safety issue in sport parachuting; poor canopy pilot training and the use of highly loaded canopies by those unqualified to operate them. I know the tandem/AFF culture produces dependent, Pavlovian dipsticks who jump when the green light goes on without looking at the ground or the tail or anything else, and it is that dependent, "the-DZ-must-protect-me-so-I-don't-have-to-think-for-or-protect-myself" mentality that gave rise to the lawsuit which precipitated this debate. But really, all you peeps pedantically pontificating about pitch angles need to man up and take personal responsibility for yourself when you go out the door, and tell everyone around you to do the same thing instead of blaming pilots and making technically unsupportable pronouncements about the way things "should" be. d5533 base44 ccs37 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."

Sigh... There are no safe exits; some are just less dangerous than others. Skydiving is never safe; sometimes it's just more dangerous than others. Thus your foundation premise is specious and your entire argument is built on the quicksand of one parallactically suspect photograph. So what's your point? d5533 base44 ccs37 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."

Sigh... No... it wasn't. parallax [pæra;læks] n 1. (Physics / General Physics) an apparent change in the position of an object resulting from a change in position of the observer [via French from New Latin parallaxis, from Greek: change, from parallassein to change, from para-1 + allassein to alter] parallactic adj parallactically adv d5533 base44 ccs37 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."

Thank you Bill. This is something upon which we can both agree. Can we also agree that it says that a climbing exit can be safe, so long as everyone understands what it requires, and executes to that requirement? Because some have posted that the climbing exit is categorically unsafe. And I do not think that is a true statement. Thank you indeed, Bill, because your common-sense statement supports Paul's contention that it was inaccurate and therefore wholly inappropriate for USPA's Safety Day ad to declare that the tail was "much lower than it should have been." No... it wasn't. Which, of course, is why Paul is so concerned about the potential legal ramifications such a brain-dead declaration by the sport's governing association may have on drop zone operations. d5533 base44 ccs37 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."

quick jump story on "gadget" addiction. one day at perris i hop in the plane with gear, shorts, and nothing else. i'm sitting at the back so everyone on the load can see me. as the plane starts rolling, several of them urgently point out that i have no altimeter. A couple of them even offer to loan me on of their two (or three or four!) altimeters (i kid you not; one guy had an analog, a digital, and 2 audios!). i said "no thanks, i still have two" and pointed to my eyes. This remark was greeted with astonishment by these several jumpers - and chuckles and nods from the few old farts on the load. d5533 base44 court-certified expert BASE witness 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."

as everyone else has said, the best way to deal with this is to not get in this situation in the first place, but the one thing i haven't seen in previous responses is that the best way to avoid the situation is to not be so fast on the cutaway trigger in the first place. For example: Let's say you make a skydive and deploy your main. On opening you have a bad line twist . Its looks to you that you will have to cutaway. So you... ...squeeze your risers together instead of pull them apart and clear the twists if possible... Or... Let's say you make a skydive and deploy your main. On opening you have a line over. Its looks to you that you will have to cutaway. So you... ...pop your brakes and pump them to clear the lineover if possible... If after taking these steps your canopy does not clear, then put one hand on the reserve ripcord and one hand on the cutaway handle, peel your handle out of the pouch and then yank that puppy as if your life depends on it (which it does), and then pull the reserve ripcord with similar enthusiasm and authority. But do not be in a big hurry to start yanking handles just because your main doesn't open perfectly clean. Unless you like pulling so low that you can't take a few seconds to think after you open, you have plenty of time for a couple of "pre-emergency procedures" before you go full-tilt boogie on the handles. And if you do like pulling too low to think, then you better be going fult-tilt boogie on those handles the instant you see a possible bad deployment. Either way, however, there's really no reason or excuse to get yourself into the situation you describe. d5533 base44 court-certified expert BASE witness 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."

Is there a reason we don't consider momentum in these conversations? A 200 pound human traveling at 600 mph would have considerable momentum. I'm thinking specifically of how an individual would swing out from under the canopy when starting a sharp turn from a 0 mph ground speed versus a 45 mph ground speed. My brain is struggling with visualizing, let alone calculating whether or not there would be a difference, not to mention a noticeable one. When the winds are that high where I jump, turbulence would crush any other more subtle factors. -eli It's all about reference frames, Eli. The whole universe is in motion, has momentum and velocity. Our galaxy and our planet both have motion. To consider any physics problem, you have to pick a reference point and say that it's not moving (which is a lie, since everything is moving, always). If your reference point is the body of air you are in, your momentum is unchanged whether you are flying your canopy through still air or fast air. The only thing different about fast air is that the ground is moving rapidly underneath it. That's what the air thinks at least.... the ground thinks the air is moving rapidly right above it. In the end, the physics of you flying your parachute, diving, turning, flaring, does not change in your "body of air" reference frame. It only changes to somebody standing on the ground, on Earth. Or on Mars, or anywhere else in the universe. sure is interesting how much so much quality commentary was generated by my not-so-quality D'OH! Moment comment. Good stuff everybody! Glad I could help... 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 car is anchored to the ground by its tires. Your canopy is not. You are thinking in terms of a ground dweller and not somebody in flight. If you hold your hand out the window of an airplane flying on a day with no winds.... vs a day with high winds... you will feel the same force. Because the airspeed it the same. you're right on all counts. brain fade by me... and the funny thing is, i have for years been the guy saying what you are saying! BTW, thanks for being kind in the face of my D'OH! moment. 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."

court certified. I feel compelled to reply to that again, Robin. From my post # 263 in this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3776342;search_string=expert;#3776342 ha, ha, thanks for that, andy. of course you're right. this is the same thing as peeps who imply that their jump numbers (or alleged) jump numbers make them smarter and wiser and more cool. Funny how you didn't call me on d5533 and base 44 though - same thing. even funnier is how much a rise i got out of y'all for that one little thing there... over on basejumper.com i get the same blah-blah when i post my base #. but anyway, since you don't take PMs, let me say this publicly; i like reading all your stuff, andy908; you're almost always spot on and pretty much always factually accurate (including this post). d553 base44 ccr55 ccs37 and yes, court-certified expert witness for BASE 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."

court certified. 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 have not seen this myth repeated in a while and thought perhaps it had been dispelled. The airspeed of your canopy does not change, no matter what the ground winds are doing. The wind doesn't "hit the top of your canopy" because your canopy is not attached to the ground. It's attached to you, and the whole system (you + canopy) are moving with the air, relative to the ground. Imagine a normal, no wind day, and you are coming it to land. At 500 ft the ground turns into a massive conveyor belt moving at 20mph. Everybody standing on the ground is now moving in the direction of the conveyor belt and feeling 20mph wind in their face. None of that will have any effect on how fast your canopy flies, but it will affect how fast you have to run when you land. Same with high (steady) winds. The ground and air can be moving relative to each other at any speed possible... but your canopy still moves through the air exactly the same. Sigh... you're right. my bad. when you're inside the airflow, nothing changes regardless of windspeed/groundspeed. my bad. d5533 base44 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 joke. Marta and I are in fact the only two court-certified BASE jumping expert witnesses in the United States. We received that certification in 2000 when we helped Hank Caylor beat his reckless endangerment charge in Denver. d5533 base44 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."

http://gulfnews.com/...urj-khalifa-1.563191 this was a "reward jump," done the day after the opening ceremony demo jumps from an aircraft - too many fireworks and lasers to do the building during the opening ceremony, as you can see here: http://www.dumpert.nl/...ai_ies_geopend_.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."