rhino

That's one way to say it I guess :) lol It's all relative.. It is risky but it doesn't have to be dangerous. lol Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

Yeagh.. Bonfires are pretty cool.. So is the family :) I feel the love in this room.. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

Very True.. When I posted the Fail Safe thread I was suprised that people didn't know what it meant? I knew what fail Safe was before I purchased my first rig. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

I don't know Lisa that well but I do know Derek. I would listen and learn from EVERYTHING that he puts on here. He is the best damned pilot and probably the most talented skydiver I have ever seen. Derek said something a few days ago to me that I posted on here that could prove to be invaluable. I asked Derek what his thought process was like when he was at my level "300 jumps" And starting to Carve much less hook. "I had more jumps (600ish) and had spent a lot of time observing canopies, understanding how they work and fly. I studied aerodynamics so I could understand what I was doing and why the canopy did what it did. Lots of visualation, I probably have 2 mental hooks for every actual hook. You start w/ an empty bag of experience and a full bag of luck, the trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck. Of course I also believe you make your own luck. Like Arnold Palmer said "the more I practice, the luckier I get" Derek" This is SUCH an important thing.. I have been a professional golfer for 3 years now and I do the same thing.. For every shot I hit, I visualized the ball flight at least twice. What makes Tiger Woods so good is his Mental Focus and planning. He doesn't hit the course without a plan of action. He knows what to do when things are going good and what to do to get himself out of a disaster. If you fail to plan you are planning to fail.. Rhino I had "ONE" jump that I planned to fail.. I went two chins and two knees too low" I slept with a pillow between my legs for 2 months. That was my fault and mine alone.. I was doing something that I had not prepared myself for and HAD NOT planned properly for. Not to mention I was trying to do something that the canopy was not made to do. I screwed up. Luckily I walked away without a real scratch on me. People like Derek were the ones harping on what an idiot I was for not planning and being "safe" or smart. Bottom line it was my mistake. I will NEVER make that mistake again. It made me take a step back and slow down. I got a chance to realize that the real pilots didn't get where they were by taking constructive criticism personally but by learning and seeking knowledge. Then applying what they have learned systematically and with a grain of salt. Learn from my mistakes and from the LACK of mistakes made by people like Derek. I know I am learning. Like a sponge. Right now I am nothing but an EMBRYO in this sport. I am just starting to learn at 300 jumps. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

The danger is relative. You still don't get it.. At no time did I say safety was not important.. I stick to my guns on this one.. You are allowed to disagree.. Rhino Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

I follow Derek's train of thought here.. This is from another post. "It is difficult to believe that I have to get hurt or killed skydiving. I was much more likely to get injured when I was a full time instructor because i couldn't pick my days and had to do Tandems to pay the bills. Now, if I am tired, recovering from a cold, the weather isn't good, I can sit on the ground. I can call the shots. I know skydiving is a risk, and that knowledge helps keep me safe. I don't let my guard down. I maintain my gear w/ a vengance. I conciencesly and continually observe conditions and risk factors and make good judgement calls based on experience and common sense. I beleive that as long as I continue this vigilance I have a very small chance of being injured or killed skydiving. Flying in airplanes is not considered dangerous, but take a look at the NTSB's web site. There are 3-10 incidents/crashes everyday, mostly due to pilot error ( this catagory encompasses a lot of things like flying into weather they shouldn't have= bad decisions)or mistakes in maintenance. rarely does big airliner crash, because the pilots and crew are very well trained, fly well maintained aircraft, excersice good judgement (helped in part by company policy, and hindered by company policy in some cases, i'm sure) and plan their flight in detail, taking into account contigencies. is flying dangerous? It can be, if you do not do the things necessary to keep it safe. I believe it is the same thing in skydiving. Most of the little accidents I've seen, the jumper did not do at leat one of the 4 things that can make skydiving safe: pre-planning, good judgement, proper equipment, and special Training." Again.. I agree with Derek. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

Damn.. I can't wait to get a fraction of what is in your head... Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

I'm with Derek on this one.. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

I don't know.. I've seen a table tennis ball do some SERIOUS damage to an eyeball!!! I suppose it is all relative.. Do you feel more comfortable on a busy highway or skydiving?? Me. Personally.. I feel more comfortable getting out of the door of that plane than on a busy highway with a bunch of idiots. Skydivers will damn near die for you.. Drivers on the highway will kill your ass for driving slow... All things considered.. Skydiving isn't THAT damned dangerous.. Sure if you make bad decisions it becomes more dangerous than sticking your head in a bucket of water three times and taking it out twice. Call the new people TANDEMS if you will .. That makes money for the DZ, Tandem Masters, and Camera flyers. That is a good thing no matter how you look at it.. And I am sure and DZ owner would prefer an additional 10 regular jumpers every weekend. Driving is more dangerous.. On the highway I am more likely to get killed by someone else.. In the air it will MOST LIKELY be a bad decision that I made or a bad position I PUT MYSELF in.. Every now and then "like a heart attack" people die not having made a bad decision at all. In my STEADFAST opinion driving on the highway is more dangerous than skydiving "when using your head properly". The risks in skydiving I choose to take.. The risks on the road WE HAVE to take. I hope someone understands where in the hell I am coming from.. Skydiving can be very safe. And I believe all things considered it is.. "good decisions pending" Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

lol Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

Yeagh.. They say Men are more likely to get into a car accident also.. That is HIGHLY inaccurate.. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

I wouldn't know how many die on the way do the DZ.. We might never know?? After all they are dead and never make it? There are ALOT more skydivers than are in the USPA. OVERALL., you have a better chance dying of lightning than skydiving. OR a car accident. PROVIDING you make good decisions and are "safe". People should quit harping on how "dangerous" skydiving is and harp more on how fun it is.. And how dangerous it is to drive to the same job for 30 years never having lived "skydived". You are making it sound more dangerous then it really is. We need to be bringing new people to the sport not scaring them away. The more "newbies" skydiving, the more money the DZ makes, the better planes we get to jump, and the sport stays alive "the way we want it to" indefinately. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

Safety is also preventive maintenance.. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

Just check out the links I posted.. Compare for yourself.. lol Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

Take it for what it is worth my friend.. The average Joe that has never skydived has an OVER EXAGGERATED picture of how dangerous skydiving is. Skydivers tend not to die being struck by lightning because they aren't allowed to go in the air in a thunderstorm.. Duh.. That goes back to safety. Common sense. The day I was to make my 2nd tandem back in 1998 we saw lightning 15 miles away and took the plane back down. It is very dangerous. I don't need to argue this point any further as I am correct in what I am saying. But if you want to continue I am game. In the United States from 1980 through 1995, a total of 1318 deaths were attributed to lightning, (average: 82 deaths per year {range: 53-100 deaths}). Of the 1318 persons who died, 1125 (85%) were male, and 896 (68%) were aged 15-44 years. The annual death rate from lightning was highest among persons aged 15-19 years (6 deaths per 10,000,000 population; crude rate: 3 per 10,000,000). The greatest number of deaths attributable to lightning occurred in Florida and Texas (145 and 91, respectively), but New Mexico, Arizona, Arkansas, and Mississippi had the highest rates (10.0, 9.0, 9.0, and 9.0, respectively). Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/060501/met_6352603.html Check it out for yourself.. Then BELIEVE it.. I've seen 3 people DIE on a golf course in Fl. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

Florida ALONE suffers 5-10 fatalities a year to lightning strikes.. That's not counting people that get struck and live.. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

It's pretty simple. cmmon man... More people get struck by lightning EVERY year in Florida than get hurt skydiving.. Ask Skymama. Not to mention they probably get struck while walking to the car ready to goto work??!? Then if the lightning doesn't get them look at the number of car accidents per year vs the number of skydives/injuries a year. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

How do you know?? Please enlighten me before I pay 300$ for the mod?? Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

Should Harnesses Be "Fail Safe" 3/7/97 Recent events and the data received from them, i.e.: the fatal harness failure in Europe and the Type 17/Mini-Ring problem, should make us look into the structural integrity of our harnesses. As a leading manufacturer of harness/container systems we feel that it is imperative that we share the results of our investigations with the public and the industry if it is for the common good of the sport. The best way to tell the story is anecdotally with factual substantiation, and it begins in Zephyrhills in the early 70's. John Sherman had designed and built a full step-in harness for himself and a few friends. The harness was built using one long continuous piece of webbing which was wrapped around the body and held in place with a few stitches. This harness had no chest strap, as it was for a chest reserve, for which it had "D" Rings on the top main lift web. The hip junction was a 90 degree crossing of the horizontal and the main lift web. Here was used a 4 point Double "W" the width of the webbing with no backing. This stitch failed under a hard ram air opening. Fortunately, the jumper suffered no discomfort and landed without further incident. Sherman then did an investigation and redesign of that area and came to the configuration that he uses today. He learned "a bunch" about harness structure and over the years shared that information with other rig manufacturers as they shared with him. We have learned that the stress on that joint comes at a diagonal to the stitch line and that much efficiency is lost as a result. John's approach was to try to deflect the stress back into line by using a longer stitch with a stiffener. Another approach was to realign the stitches to the force line. After testing, we decided on the first method. The difference in the strength was minimal. They both failed in the area of 2500 lbs. to 3000 lbs. load. Bill (Booth) has indicated that this is about the same result he has achieved and we would venture to say that this is true for just about every harness out there. The specification for harnesses originated with the round parachute. The round parachute, just like the square, began its life without any opening shock attenu- ation. Just out there and "Bang". The first TSO standard was written with two levels of security, one for low speed 3000 lbs, and one for high speed 5000 lbs. The low speed required 2" Block letters indicating restriction to use in aircraft under 150 MPH. Sherman did not want to put 2 inch block letters on his nice, new piggyback design so he certified his harness to the 5000 lb. high speed category, most of the other guys followed suit. Fifty percent of 5000 lbs., the strength requirement of one side of the harness, was more than enough to pass the structural tests as the round parachute generally produced close to a balanced load. Now comes the square. The square underwent considerable development to get where it is today. Without shock attenuation the square is only good for deployment at very low speeds and even then it opens hard. We have learned over the years that openings can be greatly one sided. Para-Flite reports measurement of 80/20 distribution and projects differentials as much as 90/10. Fact: an unreefed ram air parachute at terminal can destroy a parachute harness. It has happened. A harness has failed. A man is dead. The type 17/mini-ring problem has been redefined as an opening shock problem and so it is. However, it has brought to light a number of facts. The maximum load capacity of the mini 3-ring is about 3600 lbs. We were failing risers in the field with forces as low as 2000 lbs. and as high as what is to be believed as 3000 lbs. These failures may have actually saved lives by providing a weak or fusible link to the system. The point is that we have definition of opening shock loads, from the field, that may fail harnesses. A little more about the harness failure in Europe. The harness was not certified under the TSO system and it was not manufactured by a U.S. firm. The design is one in common use, however. The risers were type 8. The webbing according, to Hans Ostermunchner the investigator, was mil spec. type 7 and the thread was mil spec. 5 cord. Both were in spec. as determined by the investigation. Other sources report that the other side failed at 1800 lbs. - a differential from design of about 700 lbs., maybe 25%. This is not a surprise and could be explained by differences in the dynamometer mandrel diameter or testing methods. Whether the number is 1800 or 2800 is academic. We are in the range of potential failure, and shock load predictions and measurements - and field failures demonstrate this fact. Mike Fury made the statement at a somewhat recent PIA meeting that people should come apart before harnesses fail. He is absolutely right! However, the state of the art in harness design prevent that goal from being achieved in reality. Before we get confused let us define what we think Mike is saying. That means, define the word "fail". To a harness maker it means no failure of any stitch at any time. Realistically that is not possible with today's ram-airs and the information discussed earlier bears this out. Ideally, the way to frame what Mike is saying is to say that it must "FAIL SAFE". That is, that if a complete primary stitch pattern fails, the user must not come out of the harness. The body retention parameter must be maintained. Just like John Shermans' friend in Zephyrhills who didn't come out of the harness when the stitch failed no jumper should ever come out of any harness as the result of a stitch failure. The TSO tests don't allow for stitch failure during the tests and we are confident that all of the designs out there have passed in the proper manner. But the TSO tests have not provided for the asymmetries that have been recently defined. At this point we're still unsure how to write such a test when and if we sit down again to try to cover this problem. The way we go about solving this problem is to educate the jumping public about packing of ram airs and about the potential of hard openings. We must additionally, adopt resolutions and or regulations that require future designs to be "Fail Safe" and we must phase out the old non fail safe designs. Retrofit packages might be developed to save the old designs. By using the education first approach we will probably solve the immediate problem with out a major financial impact on the industry. The industry will be spurred to advancing the technology of safety in harnesses by forcing the phase out of the old less safe designs. Remember we are dealing with a market driven economy in a life saving business - a conflict in terms if viewed in the best light. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=FAILSAFE&SortBy=TITLE_A Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

The new Racers don't have Velcro riser covers.. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

Fail safe means if there is a primary stitch failure in the rig the jumper will not be ejected.. Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!

Safety is relative to common sense.. Some people don't have the mental capacity to be what we call safe.. Also, any day of the week driving to work on the highway you are 10 seconds away from imminent death.. The most dangerous part of skydiving is driving to the dropzone. You have a better chance "providing you don't do something that warrants getting hurt" getting struck by lightning on a clear day than you do getting hurt skydiving. Safety is also relative "like you said" to the risks that you are willing to take, skill level, and experience. Derek is "safer" jumping his VX60 than most people jumping their bigger more docile canopies. Somewhat like Derek said I believe it is more a matter of filling up your bag of experience before you empty your bag of luck. We also make our luck by making good decisions, properly planning, having a disaster recovery plan on each jump. After all if you fail to plan you are planning to fail. What some people consider safe others consider CRAZY!! But damn.. We are all doing this to have fun and live for a change now aren't we ... Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!