pilotdave

My personal record is about 0.45 on a Manta 288. A 190 or 210 isn't excessively large. Most of my student jumps were on 230s, with the exception of my first jump, which was on a 170, and a couple jumps on that manta when i visited another DZ. I definitely had my share of backwards landings under the 230s. What have you been jumping so far? Dave

Your analogy doesn't work for me because they DON'T look identical to me. You're talking about 2 people with different skill levels trying to do the same activity. Different risk levels. Lets talk about two race car drivers. One always wears a seatbelt, even in his airbag equipped minivan driving around town. The other is fine even running an entire NASCAR race without wearing a seatbelt. When they're racing, and both wearing seatbelts, THEY ARE TAKING THE SAME RISK. Just because one of them is dumb enough to drive a race without a seatbelt and the other feels a seatbelt is ALWAYS necessary doesn't mean that they are taking different risks. If you want to make an analogy, make one that fits ALL scenarios, not just one subset of the broad statement you are making. Fitting your example to mine would be like a NASCAR driver and a 16 year old who just learned to drive, going head to head in a race. The 16 year old is only willing to enter the race because he'll wear a seatbelt. That's wrong... no argument there. But you're ALSO arguing that the NASCAR driver that ALWAYS wears his seatbelt shouldn't be racing because he isn't willing to take the risk of racing without a seatbelt. THAT argument makes no sense to me. Dave

I don't disagree with anything in your post (except your definition of safety level). But your general argument included more cases than you just menioned. What about the guy with 10,000 jumps and 50 100-ways under his belt. What's the problem if HE chooses to only participate in 100-ways if he has a cypres? It's no crutch, it's a backup device being used as designed. How about someone with 200 jumps that won't make a solo without a cypres? You have been arguing that those people shouldn't make those jumps BECAUSE they refuse to do them without a cypres. That's the argument I don't understand. And to be clear, in the wonderful world of safety, we consider risk to have two components: severity and probability. The severity of hooking a tiny canopy in is the same for an experienced jumper as it is for a novice. The probability is reduced for the experienced jumper. The risk level is lower for the experienced jumper. But that's just wording. Dave

No, that is not what they are for. They are supposed to increase your safety level so you are safer. Ugh. What in the world is the difference between risk and safety level? Safety just so happens to be my job. Risk is how we define safety level. Your argument simply makes no sense to me. Listen, I don't disagree with you. Safety devices reduce risk level EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL. You're simply suggesting that we leave everything else equal when we add safety devices. I have no problem with that. But the examples you're using just don't support that argument... at least not to me. How much risk is acceptable is a personal decision. Sure some people may choose to accept way too much risk, and in this sport, that can affect everyone so we have rules, like BSRs, and guidelines, like wingloading charts, to prevent that from happening when it can be avoided. But this is a dangerous sport. There's no question that we all take a pretty big risk every time we jump. In theory, people with AADs are taking slightly less risk. A 100 way is more dangerous than a solo. A 100 way with an AAD is slightly less dangerous. Should something go terribly wrong, it might just save your life. What's wrong with being fine with doing a solo with no AAD but wanting one for a 100 way? YES the risk of the 100 way is higher! BUT THAT'S OK WITH ME! And assuming I have the skill to go on that jump, why do you care whether or not I'd do it without an AAD? It's MY choice how much risk I want to take - to a point, as I said above. Why not extend your argument to helmets? Never make a skydive with a helmet you wouldn't make without one? Well I wear a helmet on solos just in case. Should I not do a 2-way because I want the extra protection of a helmet? I AGREE that I should take the same care not to smack my head into anything when I wear a helmet as when I don't. That's fine. But you're arguing something much broader. Dave

I don't like that generalization. I understand it, but I don't like it. It's been discussed a million times. What about the case of a jumper that won't jump at all without an AAD? The risk IS too high for that person without an AAD, but is not too high with an AAD. History has made a very good case for this line of thinking. Skydiving seems to be significantly less risky since the cypres became common. Isn't deciding what is "too risky" a personal decision? Skydiving is "too risky" for most people. Skydiving without an AAD is "too risky" for some skydivers. Skydiving WITH an AAD is "too risky" for some skydivers. I understand your point. An AAD is not a license to be reckless, just as airbags in cars don't mean you can pretend they're bumper cars. But I simply don't agree with your general argument. Dave

Well this is what brings up my question. What makes you so sure firing the reserve into a spinning malfunction at 400 feet has less risk than cutting away when you have a skyhook? If it works as advertised more often than reserves entangle with spinning mains, you've decreased your risk by cutting away. I realize there are way too many variables to give a definite answer, but what is the likely outcome of firing the reserve into a spinning main? What's the likely outcome of cutting away from the same malfunction at 400 feet when you have a skyhook? Not saying you're wrong... I'm asking. Dave

Hook: I want to hear your answers to these (pretend you skydive for a minute). 1. What's your minimum cutaway altitude (assuming no skyhook)? 2. You're using a skyhook equipped rig and someone flies right through your canopy at an altitude somewhere between your minimum cutaway altitude and say 300 feet, causing serious damage to your canopy, and putting it into a nasty spin. You need to use your reserve to survive. Do you just pull your reserve, as presumably you would with a non-skyhook rig, or do you cut away? 3. Same situation but this time the other jumper entangles with your canopy. Dave

I just don't understand that way of thinking. Who made your reserve? God? (Bill Booth only makes containers, sorry. ) Who made your harness? Who made the twin otter? Who made anything we ever rely on to keep us safe? Do you avoid going near tall buildings? They're man made, they could fail at any time, right? How did you choose the minimum altitude at which you'd cut away? Dave

Well I voted yes, but it's more of a maybe along the lines someone mentioned above. My hard deck hasn't changed. But the lowest altitude I'd CONSIDER cutting away is lower with the skyhook because with the skyhook, it might be less risky to cut away than to simply pull the reserve into a malfunctioning main. Again, no change to where I plan to make a decision about a normal malfunction during deployment. The change is only when the shit hits the fan below my "hard deck" (need quotes since maybe it's not so hard anymore). Why pull the reserve without cutting away if the probability I'll survive is higher by cutting away? (Not saying that's necessarily true, just saying that if it IS true, cutting away at a lower altitude because of the skyhook makes more sense). Dave

I can only think of a couple since I started skydiving. I'll let an older jumper answer this one. Dave

I don't disagree with you there. It would be GREAT if PD could send off any canopy to any person without worrying about the consequences. But the legal system in the US doesn't work that way. They absolutely DO have to worry, both to protect their customers and ultimately cover their ass. And of course the implications go way beyond what might happen to PD. Do you understand what all the low turn fatalities mean to the sport and those involved in the sport? PD is doing US, all skydivers, a HUGE favor by not just sending out any canopy to any jumper. Preventing injuries/fatalities benefits ALL of us. I don't care how fast YOU want to go. If/when you and all those other jumpers like you get killed under good canopies, it affects ME. Especially if it happens at the DZ I jump at. Dropzones HAVE closed due to fatalities. Manufacturers HAVE gone out of business because of fatalities. PD's policy helps prevent that from happening. Dave

I've been lucky enough to survive over 6 years without seeing a low turn injury. Guess those must not happen either, huh? And of course best practices change as technology changes. If you learned your cutaway procedures in 1965 and didn't revise them as technology changed, you'd have a really hard time cutting away on modern gear. Give me one good reason to fire my reserve into my malfunctioning main IF cutting away will get my reserve open more quickly and more cleanly, and it does so reliably. There are two reasons I can think of... 1.) I'm wrong that the skyhook will open my reserve faster than just pulling the reserve handle, or 2.) the possibility the skyhook will fail and I'll fall to my death with no possibility of pulling my reserve in time. If option 1 is true and I'm just wrong, fine. But if the only worry is option 2, I'd like to have some idea of how likely it is vs how likely a fatal main/reserve entanglement is. Don't think anybody could have that answer. So Bill Booth... Someone flies through your main at 500 feet, splitting it nearly in half. What would you do? Dave

I can throw a frisbee straight. Just practice more. I haven't exactly studied frisbee aerodynamics, but if your observations are correct, it could be caused by the lower relative wind velocity on the retreating side causing slightly less lift on that side. But my observation is that a frisbee thrown flat flies straight. Dave

coriolis force. Dave

I was in the group that showed up for a tour the day before the PIA symposium started in January. You looked about ready to pull every hair out of your head. And yet we were still able to get the complete tour, including the tensile test machine demo. I loved it. Course I jump a vector3, so it was kinda nice to see just how many inpections every component went through before it ended up in my hands. Getting weathered out at deland wasn't so bad afterall! Dave

And after doing so, who do you think came out looking more foolish? I don't think you've made even a tiny dent in his reputation but rather the opposite. Dave

Prodigy Wingsuit Promo video. Plays in quicktime. Dave

C'mon, c'mon, lets have the video! 2 camera angles? Dave

If I'm cutting away, I'm trusting my reserve system with my life, no matter what equipment I have. The skyhook is still fairly new. Is that the only reason NOT to trust that it will work as reliably as the rest of my reserve system? Yeah, it's an RSL. It can fail for a lot of different reasons. I was taught not to trust it, or my Cypres, and always pull my reserve. But if I was LOW and couldn't land my main, I'd either take the risk that my reserve will entangle with my main or not fully inflate, or that my RSL will fail. Assuming my reserve really opens in 300 feet or less, I'd still have a shot after cutting away to get it out. Wouldn't wanna try that, but is it truly less safe than just firing the reserve without cutting away? Lets assume it's a nasty spinning malfunction caused by a suddenly damaged canopy. Dave

The ad is at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/classifieds/detail_page.cgi?ID=17801. Just uses a plain email link. Sounds like your computer is configured to use yahoo as the default mail program. Mine's set up the same way...except I actually use yahoo mail. Just copy the email address from the link and send him an email. Or send a private message. Or wait 10 mins until he reads this. Dave

Cool. Who was it?? Dave

Skysurfing: aerodynamics Skateboarding: momentum A "grab" is impressive when the guy has like 2 seconds to do it before slamming into the ground. I don't think it'd look so cool when he's 8000 feet in the air. Dave

I love my sabre2, but it definitely turns on every opening. Linetwists are pretty uncommon for me, but happen on occasion and have never been a big deal. Yesterday my canopy decided to do 360s on most openings. Rear risers seem to be totally ineffective while the canopy is doing it's thing. Last week (jumped on wednesday!) it turned me in an inconvenient direction on opening (toward traffic). As it turned me to the left, I tried to correct with right rear riser. A little pull... nothing. Little more... nothing. Finally found myself really holding a lot of rear riser and it rather suddenly whipped around to the right... probably stalled half the canopy as it picked up some forward speed. For the most part the openings are annoying but not too bad. A 360 puts me back on-heading, right? Still no clue what causes them. Could be my packing. Dave

The idea of either cutting away below 1000' or firing the reserve into a malfunctioning main below 1000' scares the crap out of me and I hope I never need to do either one. But is firing the reserve without cutting away truly safer (say above 500') than cutting away with a skyhook-equipped rig? Sure the device is new and not well proven in the real world, but if it works properly, aren't ya better off cutting away? You lose the entaglement risk, and your reserve will open faster. There's definitely the possibility the skyhook will fail. But is that probability higher than the probability of an entanglement or slow reserve deployment? I understand that the purpose of the skyhook is not to lower our hard deck, but rather to add to our safety margin. But under 1000', all bets are off. It's a question of what option has the highest probability of keeping me alive. I still don't know what that is though. Dave

I'm gonna add a tutorial section to the site at some point with some instructions on video encoding and a few other topics. WMV and DivX avi files are so easy to make using free software. We could really speed up downloads and cut down on bandwidth usage a huge amount if all files were properly compressed. Cool video though! Thanks for the help Craig. I was very confused this morning when I tried to approve the file only to find it was gone, but a comment had been left about it.