ufk22

You train people to not do...? I wanna be clear on your last comment. May be what you're doing, but I'm still not real clear on this. What I was talking about is breaking the sort of combined motion that has become a learned refles, or in some cases instinct, for most people. Examples; As stated before, when most people look at their hand or wrist (looking at a wristwatch, for example), they don't just turn their head or look with their eyes, they also move their entire left arm to an a-symetrical position, twist their wrist and turn their head. During a skydive, doing all this creates stability issues and can cause turns. For deployment, most people, if reaching for a billfold in their back pocket, twist at the waist and bring their opposing shoulder forward as they reach back. On landing, most people will naturally spread their feet apart for stability and if falling down will extend a hand/arm to try to catch themselves. These are the reflexive habits that must be unlearned. I don't teach the NOT, just explain to the candidates why people do these things. When working with student, I also explain why these are natural things for people to do, explain why they are not the right things to do in skydiving, and then teach them what/how to do it right. They need to know that one part of their brain may well be fighting with another part of their brain. If you're talking about basic body flight and how the different parts of the body can effect what we do in freefall, yes, I teach my candidates about that, both as a teaching tool and as an observational too. Never thought to give it such an impressive sounding title. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Must have missed that in the USPA sylibus. Seriously, can you define and explain exactly what you're teaching and it's perceived value to the candidate, rather than using the links. I do teach coaches to watch student movement and train to NOT do what most people do reflexively (IE, altimeter checks, it's natural to turn your head and raise and turn your hand to make it easier to view) I think I may know what you're refering to, but I guess I'd like to hear in your own words what you're teaching, how your teaching it, and why your teaching it. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Swoopers get Concourse A Reg pattern jumpers Concourse C. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Deaths due to low pulls are always going to be a part of skydiving. That's the nature of the discipline. Just as deaths will always be present in other skydiving disciplines - including deaths under good canopies. Just because you don't accept the risk does not mean that low-pullers should be ostracized unless they are killing others. I get a sub-text from you of "it wasn't like this in my day so it must be wrong". The fatalities per thousand jumpers have come down drastically since "your day". By all means find we should find ways to reduce deaths, but let's do it in a way that lets the sport exist. The argument of "it's killing too many people - we should ban it" is not going to get you very far. How many is too many? Do you want zero deaths? In that case skydiving itself needs to be banned. I've said it before - we need solutions that are achievable and realistic. Many of them have been brought up and yet you continue to beat this extremist drum if banning low pulls. Let's work together on this. The last thing we need is to set factions of our small community against each other. It's 1972 all over again. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Was the unit sent in for inspection???? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I switched to a full-face helmet a few years ago after jumping over 15 years with a "frap" hat. I wore the Frap to keep the noise down. I were the full-face because of kicks to the face in free fall. I've replaced my lense due to cracks from getting kicked. This is all it's for. Any helmet that would provide some degree of better "impact" protection is way too heavy, and as has been stated, most tramatic brain injury is from deceleration, the brain bouncing off the inside of the skull. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

You should re-read what yo just posted. To explain. Sorry to be unclear. CRW at the end of jumps ended because we no longer all flew 7-cell canopies loaded at .8. When all our canopies were slower, more stable, and pretty much matched for wing-load, CRW was safer and easier. With the broad range of more specialized canopies, eliptilces, a wide range of wing-loads and the desire by some to concentrate on setting up for the swoop, CRW is no longer practical. And (I get your point) no longer safe This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Wendy I know just what you mean about crw. When we all flew similar canopies at about the same low wing-loading, almost every jump could/would have a little crw at the end. Crw is now a dedicated jump mostly because you need to have highly-specialized canopies to do it, and crw has gotten more dangerous because those canopies are also highly load ZP. Crw at the end of the jump didn't end for safety reasons. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Only see a couple of holes in this plan.... 1. The more detailed information you try to collect, the less that will be submitted. USPA "waters down" incident reports and destroys them after for a very good reason. They want the information and they don't want to be hauled into court afterwards. Want to get hit by someone under canopy and then get sued because YOU weren't flying a bright enough canopy? Very few drop-zone submit more than the baics to USPA, and often don't submit non-fatal reports for this reason. 2. Even though the information you're seeking may well be benificial, does this mean we don't take action until the problem has been studied for 2 or 3 years? 3. The real solution, unfortunately, is to pretty much get rid of swooping. Maybe we adreneline junkies won't like that answer, but it is what it is. Just like base jumping is a "test of god's love for me today", so, it would appear, is swooping. A lot of very experienced jumper have died from the swoop or from a canopy collision during the swoop. If this was all low-timers and inexperienced jumpers, I could buy into the education solution. Reality seems to say otherwise. If we don't/can't get rid of this, let's at least move the swoop areas out as far from the loading/packing area as we can and put it somewhere that is usually out of the flight path of other jumpers. Then make the set-up area a "no-fly zone for all others. That, and maybe change the BSR's to not allow for any turns over 90 by anyone with an Instructional rating while doing student training jumps. Don't misunderstand me. I don't really want this to happen, but in light of everything that's happened, I have come to realise that it must. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Congratulations on getting into the sport. Batting gloves are normally quite thin and don't let you lose very much feel. Where did you make your jumps? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

The interesting part of this entire discussion (not just this thread, but the many others about the Argus) is that there are as many people in this sport as there seem to be that feel someone (themselves or others) would be better off with an AAD that could potentially lock their reserve closed, delay reserve deployment, or, in the case of a cut loop locked in a fired cutter, cause a premature reserve deployment on a later jump, than jumping with no AAD at all. I am an Argus owner. After the first incident in Poland I wondered if the blame was being unfairly shifted to the ADD. With the history since, I have not made a jump with my Argus activated, and it is currently at my riggers, being removed. I would seriously question the ethics of any rigger that would repack a rig with an Argus. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Not a personal attack, but I've watched plenty of rated I's and Coaches do just that. I think that USPA should allow coaches to fly reserve side on non release skydives. If the coach program is truly intended to be the proving ground for soon to be AFFIs we should treat it that way. Make it a probationary period with a minimum number of assist jumps over a period of time. Require it prior to going to the course and I believe that the 'learn it at the evaluation' thought process get eliminated. This is crazy. While there may well be a few coaches that MIGHT be able to do this, most coaches can't. Just watching the flying skills of people the first day vs the last day of an AFF precourse, then imagine them doing this with absolutely no training. The second (reserve side) instructor is there for a reason, if the student needs them, not to educate the instructor. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

+1 I get SO tired of people showing for for a rating course expecting to be spoon-fed most of the course. Before you show up, maybe a candidate should be expected to; 1. Have actually read the IRM and the SIM 2.Have prepared lesson plans (which may need to be corrected) for the catagories they know in advance they have to teach. 3.Have sat in and assisted with more than the basic requirements so that they actually have a fair understanding of the skills and information they will need to exercise an instructional rating. An IRC is a 3 day affair, including eval dives and teaching eval sessions. Only AFF generally offers a pre-course (4-5 days). This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

You also have an extra risk if you put the cutter on the bottom. Bottom line, if Argus had a more reliable cutter we wouldn't be having this discussion. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

The signature should be good anywhere. Did you actually do some EP drills in a harness, or just discuss? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Based on your history and currency, expect to be required to make at least 1 recurrency dive with an AFF instructor and go through a complete EP review (maybe more depending on how well you do) before you should be doing any coach jumps. At least, that's what I would have you do. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

They ever live it down? You talking about the ones that used their mains????? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

This is your call. I did my first 100 jumps on an old canopy so I could afford to keep jumping. If you can successfully land the canopy and buying something else means you have a canopy you can't afford to jump, hang in with what you've got. An old Sabre 1 that needs a reline is a $750 canopy, not a $500 one. Your canopy really has NO resale value (and you can't use the lines on a Sabre), so can you spend $750 and keep jumping? What I found years back was that the point to initiate the flair was about the same, but you need to bring the toggles down faster with F111. Just be aware that if you flair to high too deep, this canopy is much more likely to stall, so be ready to bring the toggles back up (slowly and only a little ways) if you feel the canopy stall. Practice your flair up high and get used to what it will do and how long you can stay in full flair before the canopy stalls and goes backwards. Practice your PLFs if you decide to keep the PD170. Get advise from someone local who has been around long enough to have a lot of jumps on F-111. No one who has been in the sport less than 10 years will have any experience with this canopy. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

According to the argus web site and several others that have more direct knowledge of the TX incident, Argus has not been able to examine the aad in question. They will get to see it on Monday Mar 28. If anyone has been stonewalling I suspect the owner or the rigger that last packed the rig. Quote I'd agree if this were the 1st incident. This is at least the 3rd, in addition to failed testing of the cutter by an outside rigger. Would you consider taking down a product and support website and replacing it with a whiny letter to be "acting responsibly"? People I've talked to in the industry have said that the lack of any real response from Argus is just as big a factor as the incidents in their decision to ban the Argus. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

You're on the right track. Just making a point. Doing things right (not just with the PC, but with every aspect of your packing) will eliminated all of the most common causes of a PCIT. 99.999% is great. Just that you'll never hit 100% What's right? As you can see, even the rig manufacturers have more than one answer. Look at DSE. He's decided what he thinks is the proper bridle routing, even though it probably isn't what his container manufacturer recommends (unless he does jump a French container). This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

So, based on what you were "told" by the owner of Argus, Cypres lied and didn't immediately deal with a problem, even though they did do a recall and you aren't sure exactly when they found out about the problem with the sensors. "They are bad" The rig manufacturers (and PIA and the rest of the industry) found out about a well documented (at least 3 times) problem with the Argus and acted (though some might complain about how slow they acted, after the 3rd known incident things seemed to happen) to deal with the problem while the AAD manufacturer sat on his hands. "they are bad, and it's all politics" Am I wrong in seeing a little inconsistency in your argument? If your point is that no AAD is perfect, I fully accept that. I don't expect perfection. I do expect a manufacturer to deal with issues as they arise, and not to argue that a known problem is not a problem. I bought an Argus 3 years ago on the advice of a rigger who is also a good friend and Kirk at Para-Concepts. They gave me their best advice at the time. Based on what we know now, I made the wrong decision. I've got a Cypres coming, I don't consider the Argus safe, but I don't blame the people who found the problem or the people who are dealing with it. I don't blame others who advised me to buy the Argus. I do, however, blame the manufacturer for stonewalling on this. I also don't see that this is similar to the situation you are discussing. Facts vs hearsay This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Knowing Freeflaw, I gotta applaud how he approaches questions (in real life). Asking lots of questions is how Bill Booth figured out some of the answers he's found. You're right, there is no 100% solution...but 99.5% is a lot better than say...95%, IMO. Because of these questions, gear failure has little relevance to incidents or fatalities. Freeflaw, I pack my bridle with the "French Tickler" so that the bridle routes under the container flaps and never over. This doesn't 'prevent' a PCIT, but it definitely reduces the likelihood.[ /reply] But Bill Booth, on the Vector, recommends runing the bridal out the top, set velcro to set some slack, then over the flaps and out the bottom..... Don't know why, not argueing about it, just saying no 100% solution..... This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Nothing is completely preventable. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be in this sport. With proper care, the chance of a PCIT can be minimized. But, there are people involved. People make mistakes. And sometimes, Sh*t just happens. Random chance. That's not to say you shouldn't try, just that there is no 100%. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

From every first jump course I've ever taught.... "An AAD is a machine that will try to give you a second chance if you do everything wrong, but it's only a machine. Machines fail, just like humans fail. NOTHING in this world is 100% reliable." That said, I've made over 1000 jumps without an AAD. When I started, AAD's were much more likely to fire when they didn't need to. I've also jumped my last 500 with an AAD (an Argus). I made the decision that I should have some kind of backup. I don't rely on it, I just know it might give me another chance. Based on everything that is now out there, I won't make another jump with my Argus activated, although I will jump without it. I have a Cypres on the way. When I purchased the Argus, I asumed it to be as reliable as the Cypres. I now realize that is not the case, and the mode of potential failure to be extremely dangerous. Anyone who expects 100% reliability from their AAD, their main parachute, their reserve, or themselves should consider other sports. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I havnt been following what has happened with the argus but if what i gather from this thread makes sense a cutter fired and failed to completely cut the closing lop which caused a total of the reserve? did this actually happen or is it just theoretical? How can this happen if the cutter is not on top of the reserve pc? This has actually happened 3 times that we are aware of. Once, in Poland, where it ended with a fatality, twice where it did not, but was discovered later, I may have missed some detail but I have a question. There is clearly a difference between a reserve container being "locked closed" where even pulling the reserve handle does not release the reserve and the reserve simply not launching as a result of an AAD failure. If I understand correctly, the AAD has not cut the loop correctly on a number of occasions and as a resulted prevented manual activation. Is that correct? If you pulled the reserve ripcord in the 3 instances cited would nothing have happened, or was there a high probability of nothing happening? Depending on the location of the cutter as specified by the container manufacturer. If the cutter is on top of the pilot chute this could cause a total container lock. If the cutter is below the pilot chute but above at least one of the container flaps, this could cause a PCIT or at least a hesitation in deployment until forces from the pilot chute managed to break the remaining strands and open the container. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.