tdog

Hmm... A little nervous...

#1) Pick a good instructor. I have evaluated for a nationally known instructor who taught their coach candidates nothing, and some locally known passionate folks who offer so much to their coach candidates I want to go back and audit their course next time it is taught. If you are going to spend your money, spend it on the 'good stuff'. Other students will give good references. "It was a mind blowing positive experience" vs "ya, I learned some things". #2) A good instructor will tell you exactly what is expected on the eval dives to pass. Open your ears.

You are right in many ways... I don't want to go into the politics of what is a student landing area at any specific DZ, because each plot of land is managed differently based upon many factors... Eloy has two areas, we have one large one... I was not talking about the 7 jump AFF students when I made my comment, but more of the 15-100 jump jumper who starts landing not only at the same time as the guys with smaller parachutes because their pull altitude is lower and their canopies are becoming smaller, but are also moving towards landing "where the big kids do" and are not restricted just to the student area. Heck, their skills sometimes cause them to land in the experienced area because they missed the student area. my point was not DZ specific or limited to a jump number, but instead that at some DZs, the swoopers are skilled self regulated pilots who fly predictably that don't scare away others, as the first post suggested they might be doing at a boogie/visiting jumper DZs where they are not "known" and "predictable" and "trusted". Each DZ has a fish to fry to become safer, and it is not always the swooper... (P.S., I am not a swooper)

At last, a voice of reason! At first I wanted to disagree with you... But now I agree with you. At "home" we have a full otter load of jumpers landing, and often there are high performance landings. They don't run me off or scare me, because they are my friends, I know their canopies by color, I know what they are going to do, and they often are the people I fear the least. The student with the 260 foot canopy is the one that is going to be the most unpredictable, followed by a bunch of A licence jumpers... (I have 700 or so jumps in the last two years with statistics to prove how many plan B landings I have made because of swoopers [1] and because of students [so many I can't count].) But at Eloy at the holiday boogie this year - it was the exact opposite. I feared everyone and often landed off because people were cutting me off left and right. It was not the swoopers, but everyone... Those Cessna DZs are great places to jump, but with 4 canopies in the sky, traffic management is something that is not practiced until the boogie. Either that, or everyone just changes the rules when they leave home. So I agree - in a mixed boogie crowd, I am thankful I don't have to manage the added risk of swoopers I can't trust because I don't know them. The point... I think Mr. Burke's perspective is from the perspective of a DZ that has many, many visitors and low quantity of locals - and he says that. I don't think every DZ has to follow his model, even large ones - but they need to know the risks and study ways to address their local risks. It is all about perspective.

I was about ready to be a smart ass and say "it is xeriscaping, unless you are talking about a concrete deck, then it is zero-scaping." (Most people think water conserving landscaping is spelled "zero", instead of "xeri") Then I saw the photos and see you really did "zero". he he he

I don't remember where I first heard this, but I don't think it was on DZ.com or even at the DZ... "The risks that kill you are not necessarily the risks that frighten you." Example: If you are between the age of 25 and 44, you have a 1 in 5000 chance of dying heart disease, or a 1 in 6666 chance of suicide. You are much, much more likely to die of eating bad food or shooting yourself in the head than, say, something spectacularly news worthy as a shark attack or hurricane force winds... But, when you have nightmares at night, how often do you dream of the Big Mac's slowly hurting you versus that bolt of lightning on the blue sky day? The spectacular ways to die worry us in our nightmares and in our life... (The Big Mac should make you jump from your chair and scream, and you should not be worried about that spider that just walked up your leg.) The things that worry us are (often) not the things that kill us. This applies to all parts of life. You may be the green peace activist protesting the superfund site across town, but ignoring the radon in your own house - or you might be the concerned mother of a kid who skateboards aggressively, ignoring the fast food eating sibling who is dieing a slow passive death behind the TV. The next level of analysis of this concept: Events that are hard to see or have a slow change get less attention than dramatic sudden changes - because the dramatic events worry us more than slow changing events that we can cope with and adapt to. If you gained 20 pounds overnight would you see a doctor? What about 20 pounds in a week? What about 20 pounds in a year? Apply this to skydiving in terms of gear wear or experience... So, why post this in a DZ.com thread... Well, I am not really wanting to go into the arguments of say, is a RSL a wise investment, or a Cypres being required. But lets think more abstractly... Looking with a focus on risks within our sport - what are really the risks that worry us? What are the risks that kill us?

How to make a finger trapn' tool for next to free... Go to home depot and buy 22 gauge steel galvanized wire in a 100 foot spool. Unfold 18 inches from the spool, use cutter built in to packaging to cut. Now the fun part - assuming you want to make an extra special tool, you need a BIC pen, or else you can just tie the wire in knots or something... Take a BIC pen and remove the insides such that you have only the outer white tube. Use a drill to drill two holes next to each other in the center of the tube, only piercing one side. Take the two ends of the cut wire - and make clove hitch knots around the pen, but don't seat the knots yet. Take the tails of the wire after you make the hitch and insert them into the holes you drilled in the pen. Persuade the wire to come out of the end of the pen and put a loop in the wire so it is fat enough not to go thru the holes you drilled, but thin enough to slide back inside the pen and seat against the drilled holes. Pull the wire back into the pen so it is "stuck" and can't come out. Seat the clove hitches tight... (If you just do clove hitch knots, they will slip and slide and spin. If you just knot the wires inside the pen, they have too much slop. You need the knot on the outside to remove the slop, and the knot in the inside to remove the spin) Now I know this is ghetto, but at $3 for 100 foot of wire, and a bunch of stolen (non-working to keep it legit) pens from your office - you can actually make the fid for about $0.04 each... Yes, that is cheaper than the closing loops, that will come in at a whoping $.10 each for short ones, $.20 each for long ones. In case you are completely confused - I have a picture of two tools attached. The "expensive" tool with a grommet and pull up cord, cost $1 to make... But with a choice, I will take the pen one, because it fits in my hand and is ergonomically correct... So for all those of you who give out closing loops... Now you can give out fids too... he he he... Give a man a loop, he has a loop. Give a man tools to make loops, he will have loops for life... he he he

Terry - please give us a background on your video... Was that video shot without knowing it would fail - and you got the smoking gun on the first try? Or, was the rig to the point you could get it to fail every time you packed it? I am only asking because understanding how gear fails - even after the manufacture says "we are gonna fix it", opens my mind to better understanding. Do you have any photos of the situation?

Software update changes.... It appears due to my post numbers, my profile:

You are right, the fuse is not going to protect a human. However I was making a comment more on the strength of the wire and attachments. I had power lines behind my old house that were taken out more than once by trees, trucks, etc. Got good with dealing with them. When anything of force hit the lines, they would snap or come undone. Plus, they were insulated. Not to say playing with any power lines is good. :-) I guess I should have clarified my thoughts.

Well, from my electronics background, the answer is "it depends". If you land in power lines and don't touch the ground or another power line, you have "potential voltage" but "no current." You live and never get a shock and no current will go thru the AAD. You touch two power lines or the line and the ground, the current will flow, and you most likely will die, or at least lose the body parts that touched the line. Now... what about smaller power lines that shock good, but have a small chance of killing - like the lines from the transformer on the pole behind someone's house and the house. These lines carry 220 volts, and are attached in a way that most likely they would be broken by the impact of a large mammal - thus breaking the circuit seconds after impact, and thus causing a good shock, but not much more than when you were a kid and put your finger in the light socket. Yes, you very easily could die, but not a sure thing... Well, here again, the AAD will be in the rig and insulated. No current will flow thru it. No damage. I think the only time you would have to worry is if your car or home was struck by lightning - and the high voltage found your rig as the easy route to dissipate the energy.

wuffo = "Wuf For You Jump Out Of That Plane" (A non-skydiver. Swooping = building speed just before landing the parachute, and since speed = energy and energy = lift, the parachute can "Swoop" across the ground fast. Swoop and dock = jumping out of the plane and diving down to someone else and docking on them.

I agree 100% with what you said... You get a great video that matches the DZs training program and use it as part of the program and I am all for it! My simple concern was - equipment changes, equipment is different, training changes, training is different... You mentioned old ripcords. Say a DZ still uses those... The canopy mal would look the same, how to fix it might be different. So, if I was going to produce a mass marketed video I would intentionally leave out the equipment and how to do the EPs on that equipment. If I was going to do a DZ specific video, I would show the DZ equipment and DZ policy on EPs. Thanks for letting me play devil's advocate with you on these back and forth volleys - as you call them... I have learned a lot by challenging what I believe and hearing what others have said. Just because I have challenged your ideas does not mean I have not already accepted some of them. Enjoy your work - I am off to Vegas in a few hours for work myself. Yes, work...

You are right. And you modified my examples to a DZO who made a reasonable effort once confronted with the issue. The waiver can't stop a lawsuit, anyone can sue for any reason. The waiver can't (from what a lawyer told me) protect anyone from "gross" acts. It will take a jury and judge to decide. Good news, the DZs I have been to have fixed issues and have no gross acts that I have seen.

I agree. In your example of the binding tape - the risk was known to the participant. I had very specific examples... A trained (licenced) professional telling the DZO to not operate a plane and he does it anyway - and/or a drunk tandem instructor.... These are cases where the known risk exists as usual - but it was compounded by an individual who did something KNOWN to add a lot more unnecessary risk. I looked it up: and if you trust wikipedia: Your examples: My devil's advocate.... If the manufacture says, "make this mod, we found a safety problem", and the DZ ignores.... Other JMs reported to the DZO they had knowledge the instructor did not have a rating and often came to work with a hangover... The JMs identified their peer taught something fundamentally wrong. The DZO does not take action to investigate. The trade journals document previous accidents caused by modification of the door on this airframe. The professionals specifically identify a concern. The DZO is sent a letter by the manufacture suggesting no further jumping operations until a reinforcement bar is installed. The DZO does not order the part and proclaims to the staff he knows better than those fools at the factory. The pilot repeatedly notifies the DZO that the oxygen tank leaks. He puts it on a preflight inspection form. He is concerned because he experiences hypoxia on a few flights. The DZO says he repaired the tanks, but instead of adding a turn to a loose fitting, he alters the documents, forging a signature on new inspection reports, that cover up the problem that could have been fixed for free with a hardware store tool. *** Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate lawsuits. I would hate to be part of one. I hope no one sues any DZ I go to... But - there is a difference between participating in a high risk sport and managing the risk, and a DZO who knowingly and willingly acts in ways to increase risk beyond what a reasonable person would do.

If the video follows exactly the school/dz/instructor policy - then it can show the complete situation including the EPs, and perhaps even teach the EPs in conjunction with the teacher... To further clarify - I am saying... Show a mal so the student can see the mal - then pause the video and allow the instructor to say, "our procedure is... Do it with me. Lets practice." If the EPs were shown... The video producer would have to determine... Throw handles vs keep handles... (I bet they keep to save video production costs) Two hands one handle, two handles, one hand. Imagine all the other variables that would have to be determined by the video producer and accepted by the instructors...

So.... When they remade the VW bug - it was a whole new car... The question is - are they taking the previous drawings and building an exact replica - or are they going component by component and redesigning... The reason I ask.... Our DZO mentioned he had to pay well over $1000 for a hinge. If they copy down to the hole placement of screws, the hinge for a 1960's built otter will be the same as a new one - and thus the parts will be less expensive... Or, could the new company go to a catalog of currently available hinges and say, "this one is rated the same, lets redesign around this?" Then, parts would not be useful for older planes. Honestly I know nothing about this subject - but my gut tells me that the new otter will look the same as the old one, but be built with lighter, newer, currently available parts.... Agree or disagree?

Maybe 100 tunnel sessions - and I have felt a "change" when they power up the fans, but never had a problem clearing ears... The pressure changes are not that huge, I think I once had an alti (because we were doing a jump/tunnel camp and I never took off my jumpsuit between sessions) and it read only a couple thousand feet - basically a hop-n-pop... Anyone else know the pressure with better detail? I think you are somewhat congested without knowing it - if the dust is bad and you are sensitive to dust. Also - did you do any jumps? Sometimes it takes a while for me to notice my ears...

Good point. That was assumed in my post. I scared myself pretty good on my first line twists by kicking out of 9 twists without looking once at my alti, so I thought about this a lot... The following is my devil's advocate argument. One of the things you talk about is students counting to 5.... It concerns me because students (and even experienced skydivers) seem to modify the space-time-continuum... I don't see an AFF student. I see a soon-to-be licenced skydiver who needs to learn life long lessons... Here is a true story... I had a good dive (single line twist) on my canopy a few months ago. I told someone on landing "it spun a lot on opening and took forever to get out. Felt like I needed to chop it soon." On video, it lasted less than two seconds. But even with hundreds of jumps in the last year (to prove currency) - my brain could not process the actual time... That was me... Now... How many AFF students tell you "I started my diveflow right away" or "I waited forever to start my diveflow after we left" and they were completely wrong... So, I like to teach something that uses a rhythm and beat to it that, when done, uses a physical action to establish the "beat"... "Kick Once, Kick Twice, Alti"... I teach it, because it is what I do... The difference between the slowest kick and the fastest kick is less than a second I suppose... Counting to 5 has so much room for error and requires the student's brain to do two separate tasks... Kick and count (and remember to count) Try playing the drums to your favorite CD and count outloud at a completely different pace than the kick drum. Now be kicking that kickdrum with the body language of your whole body. I argue it is hard to count "one-one thousand" while kicking at a different beat. A big kick with a reset takes 2 seconds. 5 kicks = 10 seconds if the skydiver counts at the same speed as a kick. That could be too long... I picked "try once, try twice, alti" - because that would be about 5 seconds. Even at 120 MPH, that is only 1000 or so feet.... An AFF pulling at 5.5K waiting 5 seconds between alti = a-ok. Once they get their A, that is their entire window between their new pull alti of around 4K and the decision alti. Now with my system - I do have to teach the student what a "try" is for the training of clearing a horseshoe or can't find PC - using the "try once, try twice, EPs" To do this, I wrap a bridle around my wrist. I demonstrate a "try". I also wear a rig and demonstrate a "try" to find the hacky. I make it clear that a try is a quick, crisp, clean, deliberate action. Then the class demonstrates a "try". Plus... Another reason why I like it... If the student says the response to line twists is: "Separate risers thumbs down, kick once, kick twice, alti" - they have built their alti awareness directly into the procedure - instead of adding "and don't forget to count" as something to add on top of the base physical mechanics of kicking. Just my thoughts and justification for my methods. These are all reasons (keeping this on topic) why a good training video, in my opinion, does not illustrate the EPs, when to do the EPs, or how to do EPs... It just shows a situation and allows the instructor to teach to the situation....

That was written somewhere but not followed...I had a 170 with an exit weight of 225 the entire time I was there. I was told for instructors/staff 1.3 max. You would thus be (almost) within the reg. I met with the head rigger for the USAFA on Wednesday night, BTW... We are putting together a knowledge sharing group... He was talking about his current project - assembling over 200 new rigs while keeping the total fleet of 400+ rigs maintained. Anyway, he is very open to sharing info and volunteered us to contact him about the ADDs as he was factory trained to maintain them... I am sure I can get all the scoop to any question asked too, although I trust you (Miami) to know too.

Good point. That was assumed in my post. One of the things you talk about is students counting to 5.... It concerns me because students (and even experienced skydivers) seem to modify the space-time-continuum... I don't see an AFF student. I see a soon-to-be licenced skydiver who needs to learn life long lessons... Here is a true story... I have it on video... I had a good twist (single twist) on my canopy. I told someone "it spun a lot on opening and took forever to get out." On video, less than two seconds. But even with hundreds of jumps in the last year (to prove currency) - my brain could not process the actual time... In this case, it was the advanced thought process of my brain calculating altitude consumption that associated altitude with time and distorted my reality... But how many AFF students tell you "I started my diveflow right away" or "I waited forever to start my diveflow after we left" and they were completely wrong... So, I like to teach something that uses a rhythm and beat to it that, when done, uses a physical action to establish the "beat"... "Kick Once, Kick Twice, Alti"... Well, the difference between the slowest kick and the fastest kick is less than a second I suppose... Counting to 5 has so much room for error and requires the student's brain to do two separate tasks... Kick and count. Try playing the drums to your favorite CD and count outloud at a completely different pace than the kick drum. A big kick with a reset takes 2 seconds. 5 kicks = 10 seconds. That could be too long... I picked try once, try twice, alti - because that would be about 5 seconds. Even at 120 MPH, that is only 1000 or so feet.... An AFF pulling at 5.5K = a-ok. Once they get off AFF, that is their entire window between their new pull alti and decision alti. Now with my system - I do have to teach the student what a "try" is for the training of clearing a horseshoe or can't find PC. To do this, I wrap a bridle around my wrist. I demonstrate a "try". I also wear a rig and demonstrate a "try" to find the hacky. Then the class demonstrates a "try". Plus... Another reason why I like it... If the student says the response to line twists is: "Separate risers thumbs down, kick once, kick twice, alti" - they have built their alti awareness directly into the procedure - instead of adding "and don't forget to count" as something to add on top of the base physical mechanics of kicking. Just my thoughts and justification for my methods. These are all reasons (keeping this on topic) why a good training video, in my opinion, does not illustrate the EPs, when to do the EPs, or how to do EPs... It just shows a situation and allows the instructor to teach to the situation....

on a side note... After visiting some of your online website documents (http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/sg_skr_dealing_1_uppers.html) and seeing this post - you have a gifted talent at using ASCII characters to draw pictures. It is quickly becoming a lost art form with computers designed to render 3D graphics using transparancy between objects.... Now I am going to run and get a dictionary and translate what you drew.

I am definitely not an advocate of lawsuits. But, the fear of lawyers does do one thing... It keeps DZOs who otherwise could sleep at night with poor maintenance on planes with the attitude "the waiver will protect me" awake to contemplate reasons why they should spend the maintenance money... The only time I could see a lawsuit I would support - is if there is clear gross negligence... Imagine a maintenance tech telling the DZO, "you need to do this asap" and he ignores it. He made a safety decision on my behalf he had no right to make without notifying me of the risk. Or, lets say a drunk tandem instructor... It is too bad that people actually participate in gross negligence - we wouldn't need lawyers...

I am not in the AF Academy but I have trained dozens of the 490 program graduates in civilian skydiving and a lot of my friends go/went there. To further clarify, the dual AADs are for 490 program jumps only (no instructor - hop-n-pops with student pulling on their own). All the other AF cadet/staff skydivers use rigs just like we do, just with very large mains (1.0 WL max).

Mine did... (drop the ball) My first line twists at 30 jumps I did not look at my Alti - and I had to kick out of 9 twists. I lived, but was not doing what I should have done. I now teach what I do. For line twists: "Kick once, Kick twice, Alti... Kick once, Kick twice, Alti." This lines up with our conversations of horseshoes (clearing a pilot chute from a hand or body part) and hard pulls/can't find handle. "Try once (to clear/pull), Try twice, EPs." When the students demonstrate kicking out of twists I expect them to demonstrate the alti and say it outloud.