tdog

That being said, and the fact that no two canopies fly the same, and the fact winds at opening altitude can be drastically different than the winds on the ground, I recommend to the original poster: I like using a technique of finding out where you are going to land at full flight, then going to rear risers (or brakes, but rears often help more) and immediately comparing that to the reading you just took. That way all the variables of "which way and how fast is the wind" and "what canopy am I flying" are eliminated. If the spot is so bad that this 10-20 second test is going to make it harder to land at your spot, you don't have enough insurance policy in your flight plan anyway, and you are using your luck bucket instead, thus fly and land someplace else that is a sure bet, even if it is landing out and landing someplace awkward... (The exception being only if the landing areas get progressively safer as you approach the DZ and thus your safety margin only gets better heading home. My DZ has a huge ditch that can kill you between miles of fields, so it is not the case at home.) What technique do I use to know where I am going to land? It is the spot on the ground in the distance that does not move up or down in your field of vision, but just gets bigger. If that point is not 3/4 across (on the far end of) the DZ's landing area, preferably all the way across, then I plan on landing out...

So she had Slyde lie on the stand - how did she have this done, Mike? Was it for 30 silver pieces? Are you saying you think his honesty and integrity could be so easily bought? If he was so willing to lie, why didn't he do so to save his own ass/business/reputation? It's rotten to speak ill of the dead not because of sentimentality but because that person is unable to defend himself. Slyde may be gone, but I'd like to see the evidence that backs up those comments, Mike. The video depositions we watched for HOURS from the suit, at PIA, were unbelievable. The injured skydiver said some of the most ridiculous things... Things that an AFF FJC student would have known were wrong. Sad actually. About Slyde lying on the stand... The following is my memory NOT WORD FOR WORD, but close enough that I am willing to put it online as an approximation of the video depo: Lawyer (L): Have you ever discussed with anyone how to maximize your revenue as an expert witness in a case? Slyde (S): No L: Are you getting paid as an expert witness in this case? S: Yes L: Do you know Dan Poynter? S: Yes L: Have you worked professionally with Dan Poynter? S: Yes L: Have you ever emailed Dan Poynter about this case? S: No L: Did you ever email Dan Poynter asking him how to maximize your revenue as an expert witness? S: No L: Is your email address XXX@XXX.COM? S: Yes L: Did you know that Dan Poynter is an expert witness in this case, working for the Defense? S: No L: Did you send this email to Dan Poynter? S: Yes L: In this email do you ask Dan Poynter how to maximize your revenue as an expert witness working for your client? S: Yes L: So you just committed perjury because you just testified under oath that you never sent this email, then you testified you did? S: Yes --- As anyone who has watched a complicated trial knows, expert witnesses are hired to spin the truth to help their client. They are to give opinions, based upon tidbits of reality, that give their client an advantage. When asked about other tidbits that can hurt their client, they use words like, "I would have to research that" or "I don't have that data with me" or "I am not aware of those policies".... Slyde might have been a bit too much for the plaintiff and taken his role of expert witness too far, but the part I forever lost respect for was the 100% lies about his emails, for which I saw in the video depo with my own two eyes. It might have hurt is credibility A LITTLE if he admitted he was maximizing his profit. It hurt is credibility A LOT that he did not admit it. But then anyone who is an expert witness, that is not smart enough to ask a parachute expert if they also are an expert witness in the same case prior to seeking their advice is probably not well enough trained to be an expert witness.

Well, if I remember correctly from the same seminar I attended, the waiver was NOT thrown out, it was just deemed not to apply to ONE entity due to the placement of a comma in the named parties section of the waiver. In other words, it protected the dropzone, the city, the instructors, the aircraft owners, etc... But since the "gear manufacture" was not properly placed in the sentence with proper grammar, the judge ruled that the gear manufacture of the gear the plaintiff was jumping was not bound by the contract, but instead gear manufactures of gear owned by the DZ would have been bound. This is compounded by the fact that when there is ambiguity in a contract, or confusion in words in a contract, the law says you have to rule against the interests of the person who wrote the contract. (I know this as I just spent 2+ weeks as a jury member determining if a construction industry contract applied to a construction activity, no different than the skydiving lawsuit, almost a mirror image of the case, and one of the 21 jury instructions told us how to rule when a contract is not specific or has ambiguity). I DON'T THINK the sunpath lawsuit applies to the age requirement as a case study or case law. The Sunpath lawsuit was a experienced skydiver, who owned their own gear, suing a gear manufacture. The gear manufacture went to the DZ and asked for a copy of their waiver hoping the DZ's waiver would protect them. I believe this defense is very hard to use as everything has to work perfectly to protect the manufacture and a judge will ask, "why would a DZ protect someone else who they are not related too, when that someone else's product is sold by someone other than the DZ to the user?" He is going to want every T crossed perfectly for that defense to work. I think you would have to look at contract law, in the various states, to see how many times and how often a waiver, WRITTEN BY the DEFENDANT (not a 3rd party), have been thrown out because of age restrictions. I honestly don't know the answer, but this is where I would look if I was concerned. Windtunnels, zip lines, bungee jump operations, hot air balloon pilots all have waivers for underage participants signed by parents and children... They seem to work. Anyone know of cases where they didn't???

Smile more in freefall. That is rule #1. The relaxing and arching BS most instructors (including I) tell you to do will come in time and come with a huge smile. Perhaps even flip off your instructor in freefall to let him know you are having fun...

I would teach him in a heart beat. It sounds like a fun challenge. For the FJC I would sit with him with a computer and type what I was trying to say and show him lots of pictures, etc. I would make him do his homework of reading the SIM cover to cover and recite back to me via notepad/computer certain parts to make sure he understood... Maybe have him read other books too. For the freefall practice, I would simply use the handsignals taught. Heck, we all wish students could read our handsignals in freefall since they can't hear us, so no problem there. Anything physical can be taught with physical motions. Maybe a bit of tunnel time to seal the deal. For the canopy. I think a few tandems, where he is allowed to do most of the driving (at least to get the canopy near home plate) would prove he could do it. I have had more than one student complain the radio was hard to hear or confusing, so I don't think it is a mandatory tool for success. There are some students who you just know have the ability to fly a canopy without radio, some you wish you had a remote control to save their butt. In the training I hope it would become clear before you put him up. More tandems if in doubt. Unfortunately I am unable to go to Mississippi, so good luck finding an AFFI.

I know, I know, I am a teeshirt snob and buy the good stuff. You can get a $3 shirt too.

I started skydiving because I saw a teeshirt and I thought - I wanted to do this for a while, why not... I called the number on the back of the shirt and scheduled my AFF. That $7 teeshirt has made the DZO tens of thousands, and tens of tens of thousands if you count the AFF students I have taught since. I think a $7 teeshirt can be great advertising. Sell it for $1 so you don't waste, as people who want it will pay for it. If someone shows interest, perhaps just give for free then. That is my thought.

Let's see... You have three posts, all of which started threads. 1) A post about your tandem where your instructor blackmailed you. 2) A post about certain skydivers from certain countries that must be unsafe because of different seatbelt use. 3) A post about an instructor failing you on AFF... Something makes me think you like to start trouble around here...

Almost not wanting to post because of your attitude that you are perfect, but I will anyway. A few months ago I was in a lecture by a rep from a pilot bailout rig manufacture to pilots. He suggested both hands, always, on the one handle... His primary reason. "If you break either arm, or dislocate either shoulder exiting the aircraft, you still have trained the other hand to do the work too." This is another reason I like the both hands on each handle method.

PD will do it for an extra charge. Pricing tends to follow number of cells covered. Slows down production time too. My PD logo is sewn on fabric and is on just one cell. It can be hundreds+

Boomerang, As an AFFI - I have taught hundreds of first timers.... Only you will know if you "need" a tandem jump... I have many, many students who "aced" level 1 without a tandem... If you are worried that you will freeze up under the pressure of the unknown, then maybe you need to do a tandem. Here is my recommendation. Do the entire AFF Level 1 ground school (it is usually 5-8 hours)... Then after the ground school, you can tell your instructors, "I would like to do a tandem first, then I will do my Level 1 right after that." Your tandem instructor then can have you do a level 1 under tandem and concentrate on learning... However, 80% of the people I would tell this to would say after ground school, "nope, I will just go to AFF1 and skip the tandem." FYI - tandems teach a lot of bad habits too that often have to be relearned. The body position is often not a good arch for solo skydiving - and worst of all, landings.... Tandem instructors often have students bring up their legs so they can slide in on their butt, and should they run/stand up the landing, the student's feet won't be in their way... Well, in AFF, this is about the worst thing you can do. If you land less than perfect, all the landing impact will be transferred to the spine... Every student I see slide in on their butt will say they did a Tandem... Do it once on tandem and it sticks....

I honestly don't know if you are right or wrong in the ability to prevent. It appears that Cypres "got lucky" in a few cases where their parameters kept the unit from firing, not by some complex code, but by having parameters that were out of bounds for the situation at hand... Example, if I remember correctly, the World Record Vigil fires in the pressurized aircraft occurred because the Vigil does not have the same "no fire zone" like the Cypres does near the ground... The pressurized aircraft were in the "no fire zone" of the Cypres, but not the Vigil. Luck (or better parameter choosing), not code, saved the day on that one. And on the most recent incident, Vigil explains how the same thing could have happened to Cypres customers:

You replied to my post as if I wrote the 5/8 second thing, but it was a quote of Brett in my post... So, to make this accurate, I will copy what Vigil says in their release as I don't want to add confusion: I think Brett is disputing the concept In a low cutaway situation, the system must detect the freefall as soon as possible and activate as fast as possible to release the reserve. If I am reading his argument correctly, he is saying that the unit should take into consideration the current speed of the skydiver towards earth, and the maximum possible acceleration that skydiver could achieve due to gravity, and IF the skydiver somehow accelerated with ludicrous speed towards earth, not fire because impossible acceleration has been achieved, and thus the speed readings are inaccurate... I think he is disputing that a skydiver can accelerator from under canopy to firing parameter speed in less than 5/8 of a second. I wonder however, after having video of a spinning mal where I looked at my altimeter twice, thus know my decent rate to be well over 50 MPH - when does the Vigil (at what speed) leave "freefall mode" and return to "resting mode", where it would need to re-detect freefall as they say it needs to...

Because... This thread started with a post about an activation in an aircraft. The AAD "knew" it was above the ground... When the pressure changed, it thought a skydiver was in freefall and needed to fire. Yes, you could write code that would prevent misfires on the ground by simply staying "disarmed" on the ground or within X feet of the ground.... But it would not have prevented the incident posted here, because the AAD "experienced an aircraft ride." Why not ask them? I think the 5/8th of a second is important when you are already going terminal velocity and burning towards the ground in a no-pull/no-out situation, and that is where they seem to market that speed... I think we tend to agree that, if the skydiver is going 0-20 MPH towards the ground, 5/8 of a second is too quick to make "fire decisions" as it would be impossible to accelerate to 75+mph in 5/8th of a second, and thus the code should "average out" any spikes due to sudden pressure changes.

Solution B is : the screen should show : RTFM The so called "problem" is known, and people still use a Vigil the same as they would use a Cypres. The users are WRONG (even if I also dislike that "flaw") hahaha (this is, for other readers, discussing the fact the Vigil will stay on forever if it is not at altitude of the DZ for which it was turned on. If your home is higher than the DZ, it will stay on forever unless you turn it off. The manual recommends turning it off always prior to leaving the DZ. If you don't, when you travel to another DZ, if you don't cycle the power at the new DZ, it will be calibrated to the wrong DZ... This caused a vigil fire at 5,000 feet thanks to the home DZ being 5,100 MSL and the visiting DZ being sea level and the user thinking a friend turned on the AAD on a borrowed rig.) The users were wrong, but then again, incidents happen because no one is perfect. Are you perfect? I am not! I know because I have looked over at my Vigil on my sofa and seen it on days after I left the DZ thinking, "oops..." I also know exactly how my Vigil owning friend had a Vigil fire in freefall with 9 other people next to him... And while it occurred because they were brothers, borrowing rigs, and each assumed the other got the gear ready that morning and that was why they thought the AAD being on was normal - I know a lot of couples who jump and I have seen one person get all the gear ready while the other manifests and organizes the jump... It could happen to them too. I also jump at a DZ where 10-20% of the customers are students at a military college where they, due to budgets, borrow rigs all the time in a barter system. They are at risk of not knowing if the AAD being on is "normal". Sure, they SHOULD ask, "did you turn this on?" - or they SHOULD make a policy of "never turn on the other person's AAD" or "Always cycle the power if you are not 100% sure".... But Vigil has the technology built in already to write words on their display... After all, mine says "bat ok, cut ok, ENJOY, PRO".... If the software already has a timer built in (and it does, because it will turn off if on the DZ's ground) - then a few lines of code should be able to add redundancy to the system and simply eliminate this human error issue! I think the Vigil displaying/cycling on the screen "On Ground, Pro, 10Hr" would be the most elegant AAD out there... It would tell the user that the unit is calibrated to the ground, what model it is, and how long it has been on... It would be far superior to the Cypres if it did!

All of these involve a skydiver falling under gravitational acceleration due to Earth's gravity, so my previous statements still apply. In another post you said the AAD has benefit from all the data from the time the skydiver left the plane, more than 3 seconds. I disagreed with that, and posted scenarios here where the AAD does not have that data. A good wingsuiter has the acceleration profile of an aircraft, not one of a freefalling human... Until pull time when he reaches back and has his mal and suddenly goes in freefall. A canopy collision at 500 feet, without an RSL, where the main is destroyed to the point of freefall speeds gained, occurs minutes after the freefall is over and again resembles the profile of an aircraft, not a freefalling human... So there is no benefit of "all the data from the time the skydiver left the aircraft." Yep... I suggested a pause be written into the software and implemented ONLY when the AAD determined that it had instantaneous data that appeared to meet firing parameters, but only when that data exceeded the expected acceleration due to gravitational forces, thus something that is highly unlikely to be a skydiver in freefall. The purpose - to average out the spikes from aircraft doors, car trunks, and hangar doors suddenly opening, but still keep the AAD working if the spike was due to something that happened in freefall. You could combine this with your comment of the historical data "from the time the skydiver left the aircraft" and change when and how long the pause is implimented if the unit has determined it is in freefall already. The problem with that... We all know a skydiver's altimeter can read dramatically off when they are doing a rodeo and riding a wingsuiter's back, because they are in the burble... AADs live in the burble of a belly flier, AADs live in the pressure zone of a back flier, and AADs get thrown in and out of pressure when a skydiver is tumbling in or out of control. I am willing to bet that a car door slamming can be about the same pressure change as a belly flier suddenly flipping to their back. Either way, this is impossible acceleration under Earth's gravity because of how the acceleration was measured... I suggested the brief pause to be implemented when the AAD experiences a spike, but moments later, if the firing parameters are STILL met, fire... If the spike was just a spike, then stand down... But again, I don't think it is wise to just shut off, like you suggested, and let the human make decisions, if the pressure readings are outside of typical acceleration characteristics.... Unfortunately, the misfires documented are probably close enough to typical skydiving pressure changes such as rolling from your back to your belly and changing the pressure zone of the AAD that any code you are suggesting that simply ignores impossible acceleration, would not prevent the misfires, because the misfires are probably occuring too close to the actual skydiving profile and not close enough to the impossible acceleration profile.

Lots of assumptions that every skydive follows certain parameters. AADs have to handle non-expected skydives too: ***Wingsuits where decent rates can be slow prior to canopy deployment ***aircraft collisions (skydiver hits tail), ***canopy collisions (normal skydive goes to crap at 500 feet), ***sudden changes due to readings in burbles (a freeflier backflying transitioning to bellyflying will have a sudden pressure change due to where the AAD is mounted on the body) - etc - add all a lot of confusion to the matter of writing code to make this work. Me too... I see two major flaws with the vigil: FLAW 1(my opinion) Vigils tend to fire, or have in the past tended to fire, due to sudden pressure changes. Hangar doors, car trunks, aircraft doors and sudden pressurization changes in pressurized aircraft SOLUTION Learn what the maximum change in velocity a skydiver can achieve in any freefall scenario, including pressure changes due to tumbling out of control. Any sudden pressure changes beyond this expected pressure change causes a one second pause before firing, but after one second, if firing parameters are still met, fire... (Actual times would be determined by looking at all the previous incidents to learn what fooled the Vigil in sudden changes) FLAW 2(My Opinion) The Vigil will stay on indefinitely when it is around 150-200 feet off of the calibration altitude. In other words, when a skydiver takes a vigil home and home is not the same altitude as the DZ, the vigil stays on. The skydiver then travels to a DZ at a different altitude than home for vacation and experiences a vigil fire in freefall. This happened with two brothers I know who share rigs who both thought the other brother turned on their AAD weeks after their last jump at home. Vigil believes this is a benefit as skydivers (or military jumpers) who jump into the night don't want their unit to shut off while in the aircraft or in freefall. However, the industry is accustomed to the Cypres mentality of, "don't turn it off, it will do it on it's own". SOLUTION The vigil has a wonderful text capable screen. The software could display "Not on ground" when the vigil thinks it is in an aircraft. AND, when the vigil has been on for more than a logical day of skydiving, it could say, "Powered on for 765 hours. DO NOT JUMP. See manual." Thus training the skydiver and warning them something is wrong.

What about the non-typical situation where a cutaway occurs stupid low and the AAD needs to get the reserve out ASAP? 3 seconds = death.

Jumpnaked69, You are so my dorkzone hero! You started a thread asking a serious question about the ability for students to progress to a sporty canopy sooner with the proper education and dedicated instructors 4 YEARS AGO. And the thread turned into 200 posts of the same old debate about ellipticals and experience, reborn yearly for 4 years. I award you the dorkzone-hero award for trying to get a new conversation started that reverts back to the same old crap. See attached!

No, I am already satisfied. Can you perhaps, when you have time, give more data on the toggles you mentioned, in addition to other gear failures? I actually was shipped a set of toggles from a manufacture with a completely new rig, that I could get to "malfunction" 75% of the time because a bartack was not in the right place... So did the end user on 75% of their jumps... The manufacture told me, "oh, we had a new employee making those. We thought we removed the bad ones from inventory." Basically the tab had an area of no bartacking in the middle where the brake line loop would normally rest when stowed for deployment, thus the tab could squeeze and be squished in that area and trap the brake line by friction with a small bump. On opening the tension of the line would dig into the toggle, and when the toggle was released it would not release the line from the tab. It required both hands to pull the line from the tab once tension from the canopy was applied, which would cause a novice skydiver to cutaway when the canopy would uncontrollably turn until they realized what happened. So now I inspect all toggles for the "softness" where the loop of brake line will sit for deployment. But, I think you said what I believe yourself: I think we are in total agreement that the majority of the risks to end users are not in the repair/alterations of mains, but instead the assembly of parts and/or design flaws in the parts. I think most skydivers want the freedom to do "light maintenance" and/or "assembly" of their mains, and I think most people agree this is allowed by the FARs, or as others posted, should be allowed in a three tier system of "user" - "senior rigger" - "master rigger". So I don't think us riggers should be advocating increased regulation on assembly of mains because of a few incidents, because sooner or later, mains will have to be packed by riggers because I don't think the FAA will know where to stop when they add more regulation. The solution has to be in self regulation, because if we tried to regulate all assembly by the FARs, installing threerings would be rigger only, and so would installing rubberbands... And I don't think we would change the incident rate much... And, maybe your point shows that we need a tad of a culture change in the rigging industry where riggers spend a tad more effort on the main instead of slamming the reserve into the rig and moving on. We inspect the reserve over and over again, even though it sees daylight for only an hour twice a year, but how often do riggers ofter to inspect the main without demanding additional money?

Terry, I am not trying to attack you personally, however I am going to ask you to back your previous statement that maintenance has killed people. The FAA published in the Federal Register that MEL linked to this thread: Emphasis added by me. We will never know who in "the parachute industry" made these recommendations to the FAA, but I know PIA communicates to the FAA a lot, and so do you and MEL as you had a meeting earlier in the year at MEL's loft with the FAA. In fact, moments ago in another post MEL posted he sent a note to the FAA today... Perhaps in your conversations these matters came up and the FAA expressed concerns? So in a previous post, I asked for data (maybe a list) of fatalities or serious incidents that were the basis for the claim that there is a safety risk. Specifically I asked you because you said that improper maintenance has killed and you cited a list MEL had. I appreciate your reply post about USPA's concern about sliders/canopy attachments/toggles as an example of a safety risk. I can testify I have seen, and experienced, malfunctions in these components that have required "crash landings on rears" or reserve rides... In most cases, the gear was assembled by a certified individual, but the inherent design flaws in the keepers to stow excess line, the ability or desire to pull the slider down past toggles upon demand, but not on opening, etc - all have a lot of risk... I think this is known by most people with a handful of jumps because most people can tell you about their brake malfuction they once had.... However, this is really assembly and product procurement and design flaw issues, not maintenance, alterations or repairs.... But, since you posted that MEL has a list of work done to canopies that has killed, and you have posted that maintenance has killed, do you have any other areas we should look for when we see our friends/customer's rigs beyond the toggles/sliders? Yes, I am calling your bluff since you posted a comment as it was a fact. I am seeking the data behind your comment, if it exists. Very valid point... But, for the sake of discussion, which fatalities are you talking about, regardless of who did the work, because maybe we can learn and identify trends? I am looking for things like improperly installed lines, patches or repairs that failed.... Not things like trashed linesets that the user failed to attempt to repair or hire for repair, but actual poor workmanship in attempted repairs. I want to use that data to see if it was improper tools, improper training, or something else that caused the fatality... Thanks for your time, I look forward to your response. FYI, just today I, thanks to your post about slider/toggle issues, walked up to a fun jumper I did not know well and expressed concern about his risers... He ended up replacing them on the spot. It is a good thing to look for this time of year in the spirt of spring cleaning.

N/A

I thought there was a story about Jesus, a fish, and something about teaching people to fish... In all seriousness, I would hope all riggers would teach their customers to do the assembly of a main and almost expect it out of their customers... If this is left to riggers only, malfunctions and incidents will increase... Knowing your gear is key to survival in this sport....

MEL, would you mind taking the ball Terry passed to you? I know over the years we have argued a bit, playing devils advocate... But I ask you with an open mind and wanting to learn and communicate. I promise not to argue back, but instead to digest your list. Terry made a claim that improper maintenance by users has killed in his post, and he cites your list in a subsequent post, and if it is true, then lets learn the facts. Is this a major problem, or an isolated issue? In fact, it appears the "parachute industry" advocated that this is a risk to the FAA, and I know you and Terry are both in communication with them often.... Here is the quote from the document: So what are the significant safety concerns from previous incidents? I am not lazy, so I went to the USPA website and read all accident reports listing "equipment problems" as the cause, and found that RSLs misrouted, reserve ripcords stuck in doors, and toggle malfunctions followed by improper cutaways have killed... Here is what I found: http://www.uspa.org/tabid/81/Default.aspx?Cat=EP Can you show me (us) some reports where user maintenance, (not lack of maintenance) has killed?

Since you are an authority on the subject as a very respected rigger and industry professional, I hope you can help us understand this statement a tad better. Do you have a list of all the people (or at least a few good examples) of people killed by owner-modifications to mains? Perhaps this debate would help us instructors and riggers understand the risk and inform our customers... I looked thru my notes of various incidents, and I think LACK of maintenance (as in no maintenance performed at all) is a noteworthy cause... But I am wondering if poorly conducted maintenance has a history of killing people???? Maybe your info would help us riggers look for potential warning signs, not previously considered, during the next repack.