apoil

It is a good rule of thumb. But it's important to know when conditions are deviating from those that gave rise to that rule. I've been at many dropzones where the jump run is typically up or down the runway with an offset to compensate for any cross wind component. I've also been on many a jump run that went long, but a 180 go around was preferred over a 360 and there were still a mix of flat and vertical flyers remaining.

How so? This element seems to go beyond the basic "faster falling = less time in the relative wind". The theory then becomes far more complex and thus unpredictable. What's the theory behind this? And what controlled observations have actually supported it? Not just computer programs that simulate the theory. Also head downers RARELY fall straight down unless they are with a ball. some translation in any direction is possible.

Best way to learn the terminology is at the dropzone. Some of the terms are newer and wont be on line yet. Some terms are particular to regions.

Low uppers make this "fact" almost a nullity. A Crosswind jumprun makes it completely irrelevant. A Downwind jumprun (it happens) and the faster fallers should exit first.

I don't know about that. I spent all summer (200 jumps worth) learning the basics to RW. None of this is easy. Wait till you try to do some VRW. In fact it will take you another several hundred jumps before you can dock on a stationary VRW formation. The good news is, the 200 jumps you spend learning RW were not wasted. They provide a valuable foundation for all group skydiving. All the rules and techniques you've learned are the same when you go vertical. Plus it's no longer acceptable for freeflyers not to be bad-ass on their bellies as well as their heads. So yes, the first poster has a point. Becoming a hot shit freeflyer is a huge commitment. I compare it to learning skydiving in the first place. Just as a new skydiver is constantly abandoning friends and family on the weekends in order to jump, the new freeflyer must abandon his or her RW friends and do a huge amount of solos and two ways in order to safely develop skills.

Risers aren't the main thing but they are extremely significant. I've seen risers come off the shoulders and toggles come loose and become entangled leading to a cutaway. It's not all that remote a possibility that a loose toggle could entangle with part of the rig or the jumper's body leading to problems cutting away. At the same time I've directly witnessed several premature deployments from a prematurely extracted PC and I've experienced one myself. In every such case the jumper landed the main without any significant injury beyond being massively spanked by the opening. Now my experience is a fairly limited window so there are no conclusions to be drawn. The bottom line is make sure all your gear is freefly friendly before doing freefly. Here's something really important. At low jump numbers an AAD and an audible are as close to mandatory as can be. Loss of altutide awareness is a serious risk for the low time jumper getting into freeflying. Ask wicked experienced freeflyers about the early days when they were basically teaching it to themselves. Practically every one of them has some gnarly story about a CYRPRES fire, low pull, etc. It's a big deal. At low jump numbers you are still experiencing a significant amount of sensory overload even if it has subsided greatly from that first jump. I teach in my first jump course that the two primary effects of sensory overload are time distortion and a closing down of your general awareness (tunnel vision). Both of this effects increase again when you attempt new things in the air. Add to this the increased fall rate of freefall, and how awesome it feels when you actually stick that body position and a loss of altitude awareness is practically guaranteed. Knowledge and proper gear and instrumentation are your best weapons in turning the tables in your favor.

Don't you mean Tamara Koyn?

I knew you'd understand what I'm saying. In this case it's probably fine. But just saying Newton's Laws is a bit general and doesn't mean you have a complete model in your program. Remember high school physics when we neglected friction and wind resistance? Well there's a lot of wind resistance going on in skydiving. Also Newton's laws still govern highly complex dynamic systems (aka chaotic systems). As the number of variables increases the ability to predict becomes severely limited. Basically, just because the program does what you say it will, it doesn't necessarily follow that reality will do what you say it will, so a program is simply an illustration and not a proof.

"programs" prove nothing, ever. All they do is provide an illustration of what the underlying theory is. The only thing that proves a theory is observation. If there are assumptions implicit in the theory, or aspects overlooked, then those wont be reflected in the program, so the program doesn't prove the theory. The mathemeatics here, and the non validity of the 45 degree angle are failry simple and easy to illustrate. Sadly, even with a big document about the invalidity of the 45 degree angle posted right outside manifest at Eloy by S&TA Brian Burke, I STILL heard an instructor there tell an inexperienced solo jumper on the plane to give a 45 degree angle.

This is a good argument for a jump number requirement not just freefall time. These days with 70 second free fall times common per jump it means one can get to six hours with significantly fewer, exits, breakoffs openings and landings, all of which are important to being a good AFFI. It's not just about flying slot and catching out of control students although that's an important part.

Um... he was as big a chain smoker as I have ever known. That's a huge factor whether or not it directly caused his death. His contributions to the sport are vast. His heart was pure, and I will never forget him and all that he taught me. I'm deeply saddened by this news.

Student Traning and Safety in Australia is excellent. One thing to be aware of, though. I seem to recall that Australia has a requirement that you complete a course of "B-rels". It is a program similar to an RW coaching sequence (Skydive U), but it is mandatory before you get your B license, and before you can jump with anyone else. So you may be treated as essentially a student there even if you have a USPA A license. On the plus side, the instruction you'll receive is excellent. Different dropzones may have different standards. I was always especially fond of Skydive Express, in York, about an hour east of Perth.

Looks like they've turned freeflying into synchronized swimming.

The original poster was quoting from a mail written by Roger Nelson. Yes, I know that. But since I was writting about what I know about the mal, and I was making reference to Melissa, I thought I'd make the reference using the correct name. How about "the artist formerly known as Missy" or "P. Missy"

This is an important point that I may not have clarified about my position. If I ever need to deploy out of a situation like that at 2000 feet, it is only so that I can land and resign my position as an instructor. So if I'm instructing your loved ones you know that such a situation has never happened.

Nobody said "trust the student's AAD". My point was that with that student's AAD about to fire, and the realistic odds that it will, an instructor who has already fucked up just by being at that altitude without an open canopy above the student is unlikely to be of further service to the student, and is far more likely to increase the danger to both of them. You have to know when to save yourself. Even if the student didn't have an AAD, I would still need to open my parachute above the hard deck. Because somehow you would prefer your child's corpse to be neatly wrapped up with his instructor's in both of their respective reserve canopies?

Head up flying is the criteria, not "sit" In order to take upright docks such as this one, your legs may have to approach knee flying. The more you need to free up your arms for docks, the more you have to pick up the slack with your legs. Requiring head up formations to be "sit" or "stand" is equivalent to requiring that everyone fly daffy in a head down formation.

no argument there, but my point is the more complex you make the system, the greater the likelihood that something might go wrong. Perhaps that's just superstition.

He states his intentions to license the technology in this thread --> http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1788204 Thanks... I missed that thread. That is good news - particularly since he flat out states "no collins lanyard - no skyhook" Even absent the skyhook - I much prefer the design of the Vector RSL where the reserve closing pin is directly attached to the RSL lanyard, and the reserve ripcoord is a metal eyelet that the closing pin passes through. This prevents the rsl kinking the reserve ripcord cable on just about every reserve deployment. There's probably a few other subtle engineering benefits to design.

I wont presume to speak for Mr. Booth since he is an active participant in these forums, but I am not aware of any intentions on his part to license the technology. Other gear manufacturers do not currently employ a collins lanyard, which is truly an essential piece of a functional RSL. One potential area of concern regarding the skyhook which is not often addressed. It has to be properly assembled in order for it to work. While this might seem insultingly obvious, the more complex and unique the repack requirements, the greater the likelihood that someone will one day get it wrong. That said - A vector with a skyhook would be well in the running for consideration if I were going to get a new rig.

While at first blush it looks like you are saying the same thing as the rest of the instructors here, you should realize that that mental attitude could potentially put you and your student in danger should you one day fail to get your job done I'm not saying that's at all likely. But it does happen sometimes, even to very seasoned instructors. Below 2 grand, with modern AAD technology, their chances of survival are much higher if a zealous instructor, determined not to let one get away, doesn't save his own sorry ass.

Here's exactly what I teach in my first jump course. Before concluding the teaching of the freefall portion of instruction, after reviewing all hand signals and going over freefall emergencies, I put on the practice harness, or rig, or whatever they have been using, and I say: "Here is the very last signal I can give you". And I throw the pilot chute. If you see me deploy, I strongly recommend you do likewise. My license requires that I deploy by 2000'. Below that point, I am more of a danger to you than a help, particularly your AAD getting set to fire in a few more seconds. I have never had to do that, and I never expect to. If it is necessary, I will probably land and be fired, because I didn't get my job done. But you need to recognize the significance of what it means if you see me deploy in front of you. [aside:] I consider it my job is to make sure my student has an open canopy by 3000' the lowest (student hard deck). My preferred method of accomplishing this is to train them to pull for themselves and give them all the assistance they may require to accomplish that. I have a plan B which is to do it for them. Below 3000' we are talking about plans C, D, etc. To endanger myself further by going lower than that is not acceptable.

which means pretty much nothing, FYI. j No it does mean something. For one thing, it means that you wont be asked to present current USPA membership in order to jump there.

I fully appreciate these difficulties. I'm concerned however that you (or whomever) failed to take into account the impact that one set of recommendations can have on the body of recommendations as a whole. It's ok to err on the side of safety in most cases, but by making a recommendation that the vast majority are unlikely to follow, it puts everything else in question, especially to the newer jumper. Recommended pull altitudes? USPA just recommends 3000 feet, that's probably over conservative. Advanced discipline progression? They can't possibly be serious that it's unsafe for 3 beginning sit fliers to try flying head down together. Being taken seriously requires consistency - and this particular one seems to go to far. And again, nearly all of the canopy related injuries and fatalities that I have experience of, involve jumpers at a wingloading deemed appropriate for their skill level.

Still, these numbers are so on the conservative side that it will dilute impact of any other recommendations the USPA makes. People will be jumping 1.3 at 200 jumps. Especially bigger folks. For the most part they wont even be endangering themselves. They are going to look at USPA's "recommendations" regarding Pull altitudes, AAD usage, RSL's, Safe Freefly Progression, etc. with a lot less respect.