pilotdave

Exscuse Me!? But I really must call BULLSHIT! Two students with equal jump numbers. Lets just say 20 jumps (or whatever jump number a typical static line student starts jumping from full altitude). One's an AFF student, the other is a static line student. After my 20th jump, I had 17 minutes and 39 seconds of freefall. How many seconds of freefall does the static line student have at that point? Do you believe their freefall skills are equal at that point? How about their canopy skills. My (possibly totally wrong) belief is that they will have equal canopy skills but the AFF student will have much better freefall skills. I once talked to a static line student, with about 40 jumps. In case she's reading this, I'm not saying this in a mean way, but just trying to make a point. She was off student status, able to jump solo or with a coach. She had trained (recently) at a very small, old fashioned DZ. She mentioned she was going to a large turbine DZ for her first time soon. She was really scared about jumping from 14,000 feet. I thought that was kind of strange, but I guess when you've always jumped from a 182, 14,000 seems pretty high. But she explained that her problem was she couldn't freefall without spinning. She tried "RW" once, but she was just spinning the whole time. Finally, she was going to a big DZ to take AFF and learn to skydive. Yeah, I know, one person doesn't prove anything. But how many AFF students, off student status, have problems spinning? I bet she got that problem solved in just a few AFF jumps. How would she ever get it solved by jumping solo over and over again? And this person was off student status. Not licensed, but the point is, she was completely allowed to get in the plane, fly to altitude, and jump out. Would you be comfortable with her following you out of the plane? Do you not agree that she was less safe to both herself and others than an even mediocre AFF student after 40 jumps? Dave

One more thing I didn't add. Take a look at the fatality numbers for static line vs. AFF. A quick search at skydivingfatalities.info reveals that since 1995, approximately twice as many static line students have been killed as AFF students (nearly 3 times as many if you don't count two heart attacks). Most of the static line fatalities were due to horseshoe mals due to unstable deployments. The AFF students usually run into things like moving trucks or hangars. So, we're both right. AFF students have poor canopy control (or more accurately, get killed when they freeze up and allow the canopy to fly wherever it wants to), and static line students flail around (or get killed when they have unstable exits causing malfunctions). So, should safety be a factor in deciding which method to use? Dave

The main server is still down, but a mirror is being hosted by Cornholio temporarily until a more permanent solution is found (which is currently in progress ). Uploading should be completed by today, and then the server just needs to be configured for anonymous access. Cornholio can give the word when it's ready to go. Dave

Sure, they can adjust the cabin pressure as necessary. But there's a limit to the difference between inside and outside pressure. Once the limit is reached, as the plane climbs higher, the cabin altitude will increase. Dave

Planes are pressurized to a certain differential between outside and inside air pressures. So if it's flying especially high, the cabin pressure will be especially low. Dave

Correct. My reserve is a microraven 120. It is NOT a dash M. The dash M 120 is referred to, on precision's website at least, as a Raven 120-M. The -M doesn't stand for Micro and has nothing to do with the size. Dave

Come on dude, seriously. I know your posts better than that - you're not normally prone to making such wild statements about things you yourself admit you have no knowledge. You haven't even seen S/L training never mind done any. Yeah, I wrote that at least half jokingly but I stand by it. When a static line student leaves the plane, goes unstable, and opens upside down, did he learn to exit or did he learn to fall out of the plane? I am fully aware that down the road, which method you learned with won't matter. But on any given student jump, you get the same canopy ride whether it's AFF or static line. Sure, if you do static line you'll have more jumps by the time you get your license, so you'll have more canopy time. If you do AFF, you'll have more freefall time. AFF students are probably better an RW when they get licensed, and static line students are probably better at accuracy landings. But do static line students learn MORE about canopy control? When they get licensed, is it equivalent to having taken a canopy control course? I doubt it. When I'm jumping and there will be low timers in the air, I'd rather that they have good freefall skills than the ability to land accurately. I guess my point is that a first jump student is a first jump student. Canopy skills will be equal. A static line student doesn't learn canopy skills any quicker than an AFF student. Two students with equal jump numbers should have the same skills under canopy. But the AFF student will be safer in freefall. Dave

Hey, quit yer bad mouthing about the microraven. The raven dash m had the SB, not the microraven. I'll be selling my microraven soon so I just don't want bad info floating around.

In my very stupid and worthless opinion: AFF, learn to skydive. Static line, learn to fall out of the plane. Ok, static line does have the advantage that you'll be able to tell people you learned the old fashioned way. Lots of people like static line. I've never even seen a static line jump in real life. I think the only reason it's still done is that it's cheaper for the dropzones. Seen videos of static line jumps. 5 students, one jumpmaster. Each student leaves the plane, flails around for a second, and disappears. The JM has moved on to the next student as soon as the previous one has left. What do they learn? Arch? AFF will better prepare you for real world skydiving. Dave

3000 jumps, huh? I call Ron for the scrambles!!!! Dave

Depends how you define quality. I'd say if you have two factories producing the same product, but one is certified and the other has a poor quality assurance department, the certified factory is putting out a higher quality product. Even though the majority of the items they produce may be identical. Quality control ADDS quality to a product, at least the way I'm defining quality. I realize you mean that ISO 9000 certification doesn't mean their products are better than another's. But it does mean, in theory, the products will be produced to spec. Dave

It's funny how taste can differ. I HATE the look of the voodoo and really like the wings. Dave

My [mostly uninformed] opinion: Javelins have no real advantage over the others and have a horrible delivery time. Mirages, well, I've just never cared for the way they look (most people seem to love them) and I find them seriously overpriced. Wings are nice looking and inexpensive. Lots of my friends have them and love them. That was previously my first choice. Vectors are the only container I found that have actual, meaningful differences that set them apart from everything else. I personally find them pretty ugly, but after 6 months of playing with the coloring programs I was able to design a few I'd be proud to wear. Most I see around the DZ are quite ugly, but with the right color combinations they can look as good as anything else. But the reason I chose it was simply the fact that I'm positive that Bill Booth has looked at every detail of the rig and made sure that it is the best, safest rig out there. Many people will say it has the best riser protection, best bridle protection, and best pin protection out there. And then there's the skyhook. So in my opinion, they're all about the same except for the Vector. Mine should be arriving in early March. Can't wait! Dave

I think you're right that a lot of people don't understand the difference between accuracy and precision. But I'm assuming in this case (just because I've heard the same thing so many times), they've compared it to the plane's altimeter which is much more accurate. Course ya can't do that in freefall. Dave

No but if it'd win me one of those pretty trophies, I'd bring a few.

I am. If I survive 2 more days of work. I haven't jumped in at least a month now. Dying to get into the [nice warm florida] air. Dave

That's just a disclaimer. I met a Sunpath rep that uses one as his primary altimeter. He wore a regular altimeter upside down on his other hand for others in his RW group. He claimed it was more accurate than his analog altimeter. Dave

I totally disagree. Wait. Am I allowed to disagree with a moderator? (We're in talkback now, can't delete my post this time!) You are talking about flap motor failures, instrument failures, and things like that. The question here is about a structural failure directly due to a design flaw. Huge difference. The things you are talking about are mostly minor hazards. Structural failure is catastrophic. They can't and shouldn't be treated the same way. Dave

No. What if you're sitting in your house drinking your cup of tea and the roof falls on you and breaks 50 bones in your body? There was no earthquake, hurricane, or anything. It was just improperly designed, but still passed all inspections and met code (i have no clue how that would be possible, but it has to be this way to be like a design defect on a certified plane). Here's the thing. We can't sue whoever is in charge of the building code, just like we can't sue the FAA. If a plane passes the FAA certification process and still has a design flaw, why shouldn't we be able to sue the FAA? If a building meets code and still collapses, why can't we sue the...hmm...whovever it is? Dave

Absolutely true. The Wright Flyer's tail had every right to fall off (not that it did). Assuming this hypothetical aircraft is not a radical design completely different from anything that has come before, they should have learned lessons from previous tail designs and they should know how to ensure that the tail won't fall off. The fancy new flat panel display in the cockpit can fail. They're still using steam gauges to back those up. A tail cannot fail. True, engineering isn't perfect. Humans make mistakes. But the company that produced the faulty design should still be held accountable. Someone mentioned we don't HAVE to fly and don't HAVE to skydive and all that. What if we were talking about a design flaw on a skyscraper or bridge? How about the roof of your house? Would it make a difference if it wasn't a plane or parachute we were talking about? Dave

The lawsuit itself doesn't bother me nearly as much as the damages awaded by the jury. This is a case where I believe the skydiver had every right to sue. We all know the risks involved here, but we can also expect that our TSO'd reserves will not fail when operated within their limits and maintained properly. Sure a reserve can malfunction. But we're not talking about a lineover here. When one skydiver sued another for injuries he got in a freefall collision, that's just ridiculous. Freefall collisions, except maybe in the very most negligent cases, are a danger we just have to accept. Reserves failing in this way is not necessarily something we should accept. I find $150,000 perfectly acceptible. If this guy is paralyzed (which i guess he isnt), $1 mil doesn't seem so ridiculous. But $53.6 million is just retarded. Nobody deserves that kind of money for anything. I can just picture that jury so happy to put this evil company out of business, and while they're at it, maybe get some other parachute makers out of business by setting a precedent. Anything to make sure nobody gets hurt skydiving again, right? Dave

True. If prior knowledge is so important to you, no amount of investigation may help you decide if they are at fault. But in my opinion, prior knowledge is not necessarily a prerequisite to sue. I believe that in such a serious case, they SHOULD have known, whether or not they did. If it's not as serious, for example something that caused an engine failure, I might think differently. Dave

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is yes. Every time one of our aircraft crashes, no matter who's fault the crash is, we get sued for over $1 mil. At any given time I'm sure there are multiple lawsuits going on (they can take years to finish). We learned in the training about a few specific crashes. One ended in something like a $30 million settlement because of a single memo that was found (written by the accident investigators about possible causes of the crash). I don't know what it takes to hire one of those companies, but it can be done. And we also learned that marking documents with "company private" or similar stamps is probably a bad idea, because thats the first place they'll look. edit: misread the question. I'm certain you'd have to sue first in order to investigate. You could always drop your suit depending on what gets found. Most people are after whatever settlement they can get though, i'm sure. Dave

Assuming it's a reputable, honest company, that would not be hard. I got some training from our company's chief attorney about this sort of thing. If we so much as think we MIGHT get sued, deleting related files or destroying records is a crime. During the investigation, a company will be hired that basically uses special software to very quickly search through our files. They'll pull up every email that might possibly be related. There's no realistic way to hide that sort of information. On the other hand, if it's just in the engineer's head that he thinks there might be a flaw, well, where's he work, NASA? Dave

What if in an investigation, they found that the company knew about the flaw, but felt the problem was not likely to ever actually occur? edit: This is what I do on a daily basis. I have a database of "flaws," containing the severity and probability of occurance. Ok, it's not so much flaws as hazards, but still, some of them could be avoided with a design change. It makes me wonder very much if there is ever a crash caused by a known hazard, and they see that I wrote in a report that it is very unlikely to ever occur during the lifetime of the fleet, what will happen? In my case probably nothing because I work on a military aircraft. But what i worked on a civilian aircraft? Thats why we are careful to justify everything we do as best as possible. Dave