pilotdave

More than that. The world record (for most passengers in a plane) right now is about 1200 when El Al flew refugees from ethiopia to israel in a 747. Looked it up on google... it was a 747-200C combi converted to passenger configuration with 760 seats. They folded down the armrests to fit 1200. Dave

...and air conditioning made in Connecticut! Hey, passenger comfort is important too! Dave

Well I'll disagree with you right there. To me, risk heavily depends on odds of surviving. I think AADs do decrease risk. They don't change the probability of a collision, they don't change the probability of dying instantly in a collision, but they do increase the probability of surviving a skydive. Higher probability of surviving is lower risk. See I have no problem with this. I have a problem with the idea that any jump you won't do without an AAD is automatically too risky for you. Maybe some jumps are RISKY ENOUGH to warrant AAD use every time. Maybe the specific risks associated with certain types of jumps are risks that can be mitigated by using an AAD. You never suggest jumping without an AAD like billvon has. He's congratulated people for jumping without one to prove they can do it. But you pose the question "would you do it without an AAD?" You never ask anyone to demonstrate it. Why is "no" the wrong answer to that question? Why not ask "is this jump too risky for you, taking into account the equipment you'll be using?" You never suggested that any AFF instructor go instruct without an AAD. But you do believe that they should be willing to. Why? Just using them as an example, history has shown that experienced instructors can lose altitude awareness and die. I agree that all AFF instructors should know that they might lose altitude awareness and die. That's a given. But why should they be willing to jump without an AAD? They must ACCEPT THE ACTUAL RISKS THAT THEY ARE TAKING. They shouldn't have fantasies about what a cypres will do for them. They should know it might not work and even if it works exactly as designed, it might not save their life. But why should they be willing to jump without it knowing that it MIGHT save their life? Forget the 5 way. We agree on that. Forget lack of skill. You're very sly about how you make your argument about experienced jumpers. You never suggest jumping without an AAD, you just say they must be willing. To me, those aren't so different. It's like suggesting that it's WRONG for an AFF instructor who finds his AAD is shut off on jumprun to ride the plane down with his student, the other instructor, and the video guy. Yeah, I think pretty much any AFF instructor would "risk it" for that one jump and just do it. But you seem to suggest in that scenario that he SHOULD jump without an AAD. I think that should be his choice to make, not yours. If he wants to ride the plane down, so be it. Call him device dependent or whatever you want. I don't think he'd be wrong. And after getting a working AAD, I don't think he'd be wrong getting back on that plane and doing an AFF jump. Accepting risk and being willing to do it without an AAD are not the same thing in my opinion. Dave

I used to like subway. Before I discovered that subs at freaking Wawa convenience stores are better. I miss Wawa... none north of PA. I used to give subway the finger every time I drove by just because I was embarrased that they sucked so much compared to Wawa. But then when Quiznos reached MD while I was in college, OMG... heaven. Dave

OMG subway isn't even in the same league as quiznos. Toasters do help at subway, but it's just nowhere near as good. I never leave subway saying "MMMM TOASTY!" like every time I leave quiznos! And at subway I get funny looks when I only want the bread and cheese toasted and not the whole damn sangwich. As for rounded/square corners, I don't even wanna know. It tastes great either way. Dave

I pretty much agree with your entire post. I don't agree with some of the conclusions you've made in other posts. First of all I don't think you can really quantify risk in skydiving very well. What's the risk of going on a 50 way? Well, that depends on a million factors. Whats the risk reduction associated with adding a backup device (AAD)? Again, hard to quantify. What makes you believe the risk reduction and risk increase are the same, so that the AAD has no added benefit? Lets say a jumper is comfortable on a 4-way but not a 5-way. But by borrowing a cypres-equipped rig, that jumper agrees to go on a 5-way. What's the added risk of one more jumper? What's the added benefit of the cypres? What if that was a 50 way instead of a 5-way? Still the same? You keep saying that taking more risk because you have an added safety device negates the effect of that safety device. Well I believe that depends on how much more risk you're taking. You might be able to take a little more risk, add a cypres, and still be safer than you were on a jump with no cypres. Again, I understand your point and agree that its stupid to go do dangerous things no matter what backups you have. But I don't agree that risk depends on WHY someone chooses to use a cypres. Risk depends on what that person is doing and what equipment they use. A 5-way with a cypres is safer, in theory, than a 5-way without a cypres, regardless of experience level or AAD philosophy. If a jumper chooses to use a cypres for certain jumps because of the increased risk level on those jumps, he's being realistic. AFF instructors have lost altitude awareness and died. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that those instructors (I know of one, don't know how many others there have been) would have been safer if they had worn AADs when doing AFF jumps. I don't understand any argument for why they were better off accepting the risk of doing AFF without an AAD. Dave

You mean that section with 300 extra seats? 747s had lounges at one time too... Dave

In the Atlanta area, skyride may very well send tandems to a superior dropzone than the smaller ones they'll pass on the way. Here in New England, they are much more likely to pass the big turbine DZs to jump at the more expensive Cessna DZs where they'll jump from 4000 feet lower. How exactly does that benefit the consumer? Yes, they WILL be ecstatic after their jump and they will never likely realize they just got screwed. That's because no matter where you do it, skydiving's fun and worth whatever the drive. But are the customers BETTER OFF going through skyride? Since you'll probably answer yes, HOW are they better off? Now I really don't care all that much about the fact that skyride only sends tandems to certain dropzones which may be farther away. They are not really in the business of finding good, safe dropzones. They're in the business of bringing business to participating dropzones, just like 1-800-skydive. I don't like it. I don't think it's good for the image of the sport. But it's a business model. The problem I have is how they run that business. Lying and stealing. Lying and stealing from customers that don't know they're being lied to or cheated. Got any numbers for how many people have gotten so fed up trying to figure out where a dropzone actually is or how much a skydive will actually cost that they decided skydiving is full of crooks and just gave up? Dave

I doubt it. Honest people don't need to be kept honest. Dishonest people will forge signatures or just have people sign jumps they didn't do. I know some people that only get signatures from people that were on the jump with them or at least on the same load. But those are the honest people anyway. Anyone else can find any jumper 3 weeks later and ask them to sign off a few jumps. Would you check with manifest to see how many jumps that person did 3 weeks ago to make sure they were real, or would you just sign? Ever refused to sign a jump? Dave

I WANT MY FREE SMOOTHIE! And none of that wheat grass crap. Gimme something with chocolate! I sit at a computer all day. I occasionally get up to help someone solve a problem with Word or Excel. I go to meetings. On rare occasions I participate in walkaround inspections of helicopters, before test flights of reconfigured/modified/instrumented aircraft. I eat sushi for lunch on thursdays. Then twice a week I go to grad school for 3 and a half hours after work. I mostly sit there trying not to fall asleep. My latest professor is a cross between the drill sgt from full metal jacket and ben stein. That pretty much sums up my weekdays. Dave

Somehow you're better off on a 400 way because you'd do it without a cypres even though you think you're better off having a cypres? Come on. I get your point when it comes to a jumper going beyond their skill level. But when skill is out of the picture, you lose me. Risk acceptance is a personal decision. Just like kallend has said, each (experienced) jumper gets to choose whether he's trying to avoid the collision (by not going on the jump) or to survive the collision if it happens (by using a cypres). I TOTALLY agree that avoiding the collision is the BETTER option. But that's EACH jumpers decision to make. We'd all be a whole lot safer if we gave up skydiving. Sitting out EVERY JUMP is the best option for staying safe. But some people may choose to accept the higher risk of jumping in groups. They accept the risk of a collision. They don't accept that it HAS to mean they die. Experienced jumpers know they CAN die with or without a cypres. The cypres simply reduces that probability. Dave

Well, suit yourself. The neptune can do weird things when the voltage gets low. But that won't happen without warning very often if you use the latest software, use another battery to do updates, use the recommended battery brands, and handle the battery properly. And the "so called service people" have a supply of spare parts (other than batteries), like katzurki said, all available for free, and diagnostic software to help solve any problems you're having with your neptune. They MIGHT just know something you don't. You also might want to call alti-2. If your neptune, using the correct batteries, is only lasting ~50 jumps, there's something wrong and I'm sure they'd take care of it for you. Dave

If there's an alti-2 field service member at your DZ, they have spare batteries just for doing software updates. Might as well let alti-2 pay for your updates if you can, right? Dave

I understand your point when it comes to a new jumper going on a low skill level hybrid or something. Makes perfect sense. But you totally lose me when you start talking about experienced jumpers like freefly coaches. I don't quite understand why you care what any experienced jumper's cypres philosophy is (ie when that jumper's skill is out of the equation). Just like you said, risk threshold is a personal decision. How much an experienced jumper relies on their cypres is that person's decision. I don't care how poorly you pack your main or how often you pack your reserve (you meaning anyone). That's your threshold for reliance on your reserve. Jumping with a cypres usually will increase your chance of survival on any particular jump. Doesn't prevent freefall collisions. Just prevents smacking the ground with nothing out. Maybe that's enough added benefit for some jumpers. Maybe if the cypres had never been invented, sunshine would do freefly coaching without one. But as long as it's available, why in the world would she ever do it without one? IT DOES increase her chances of surviving any jump. Why do you care? The risk we take on any given jump is INDEPENDENT of our philosophy on AADs. If you have one, you have one, if not, you don't. THAT changes risk level. Beliefs don't. Dave

BTW, finally had a chance to actually watch it. NICE video! That one's headed for the top list ASAP. Dave

This link will work better: http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=2233. Thanks for the video! Dave

Or someone that wasn't there, or you won't remember who was there, etc. Which is why I think the requirement for logbook signatures is one of the most useless wastes of time, right behind gear checks, dirt dives, and preflights. In my opinion, only an instructor's signature should be required for jumps where particular skills needed for a license are demonstrated. Dave

There is no card like there is for the A-license. Just log the required jumps/training in your logbook and fill out the B-license application when you're ready. Dave

A tandem drogue produces just as much "lift" (upward force) as a tandem main. They just do it at very different vertical speeds. Don't swoop a drogue... it's not healthy. Dave

Ummm, doesn't that seem a little silly? Why don't they consider exit weight to be... uhhh.. actual exit weight? Clothes + jumpsuit + rig + helmet, goggles, altimeter, cameras, weights, etc can be a crapload more than 22 lbs. Dave

I used to always wear 6lbs for RW. Never could feel any difference under canopy (on a 150 or 135), but it made a HUGE difference in freefall. I suddenly started falling faster last season, so I ditched the weights. Twice I let experienced RW jumpers who hadn't jumped with me talk me into wearing weights because they were gonna keep a very fast fallrate. Went low both times and couldn't get back up (going low was a new experience for me). After the second time I started leaving my weights at home.

A 182 that needs 1500 feet is NOT safe! Dave

Just to clear it up, the link above is to Tom's videos (which happens to be category #33): http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=category&id=33. The loser luke video is file #33: http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=33. Dave

Also a section on skydivingmovies.com not linked from anywhere that might be useful... http://www.skydivingmovies.com/cutawaystills. Needs updating, but it's there. Dave

Didn't see anyone else mention it... Some show about surviving skydives gone wrong. Anyone got a tivo? Dave