riggerpaul

As I have said before, there is a subtle distinction in the thought process between knowing that you have an RSL and using it as a consideration in the process of choosing. It seems that the snag in this discussion hinges mostly on that distinction. As billvon mentions, knowing your rig has or does not have an RSL can have an impact on some aspects of EPs. It is hard not to let that knowledge creep into other parts of the reasoning. And now, popsjumper has added a new twist - that he will use one approach as his primary procedure, and fall back on the other as needed. Lots of people have discussed (though not necessarily on this thread) the notion of muscle memory - that making the actions become second nature - is a big thing in this. That's true, but it really stops too short. Either method should be available as needed. Either method should not take a lot of thought to perform. (This says nothing about what any school chooses to teach. Neither is patently wrong. But part of this sport is that we must always be learning. That includes expanding our skills to include other actions to have and use in emergency situations. Primary schools will teach what they feel is best for their own situations. But the learning should/must not stop there.) It is the decision to act, and the choice of approach, that takes the thought. Once the decision is made, execution should/better/must be automatic. The bottom line is that you need to be ready to do what needs to be done, whatever it is, in response to an emergency. Emergencies are, by nature, unpredictable. The nature of the emergency, and your facilities with which to cope with it, will vary from emergency to emergency. If you prepare a single plan of action, and something makes that plan unfeasible, you are right back at the starting gate. For example, if you choose the two-hands per handle approach, what happens if you have a canopy collision, and one hand is pinned by fabric and lines? You don't want to have to be thinking too hard about what to do. You should have that in the toolkit, with the only decision being which tool to pull out. Scrumpot, pops, maybe we'd best leave this discussion now, before we are labelled ASSHOLEs. Maybe it is time to leave Roam82 to think what he thinks.

I need to add that roam82 was not the OP, and his question was not directly related to the thread's original question about what was taught at a dz. My response to him is not directly related to the question of the OP. Roam82 said, ""I don't see any reason to use the one hand per handle method with an RSL installed... ". That's the thing to which I am responding. His statement leads me to worry that he might rely on the RSL to pull the pin in the event that he cannot find his ripcord. Not finding the ripcord is simply not an acceptable option. He further worried me when he said, "From what I understand, the weak point of the 2 hand 1 handle method is finding your reserve handle after the cutaway...The odds of that + an rsl fail are I think pretty low...". Again, to me this indicates a willingness to accept the notion that he might be unable to find his ripcord. If one hasn't learned how to find the ripcord under in all situations, one has not learned all that is needed in order to be in this sport safely. If one has outfitted himself in such a manner that the ripcord becomes covered or something like that, then that jumper has failed to learn that he must always ensure that the rig's systems remain available and ready for use. While RSLs have surely saved many lives, it remains that nobody should be saying that they have an RSL because they expect not to find their handle. Sure, that possibility exists. No question. But to go about one's training and decision making process admitting that they expect such a thing is not the best approach, is it?

Bill, the conversation was not about what a school might choose to teach. It wasn't about changing components in a rig. Nobody said anything about ignoring the nature of the rig. Nobody said one set of EPs was preferable to the other. I already said that your remarks regarding RSLs were valid and important. What we are talking about here is a statement that he chose certain EPs because he has an RSL. He said, ""I don't see any reason to use the one hand per handle method with an RSL installed... ". I said that such a path is fraught with danger. Not every rig will have the RSL that he considered while making his choice. I said that whatever you choose, you must realize that you must become self-sufficient - that reliance on secondary systems was a dangerous thing. You have said the same thing over and over. Nobody said anything about what he was taught, what any school taught, or anything of that nature. He said he would choose one EP over another because of his RSL. Do you think that is a good way to think?

I use one hand on each handle. I have an RSL. I used to do a fair amount of CRW. RSL disconnected for that. Honest answer - if you think about the RSL at all when you are thinking about what EPs to use, you are making a mistake. Pick the EPs you prefer. Work out all the details you need to work out. Forget about the RSL while you are working all this out. As Billvon points out, you do need to be aware of the RSL in a two out chop. Disconnect to avoid the snag hazard if you have a one-sided RSL. Disconnect the 2 sided Racer RSL or you can choke off the reserve. The whole notion of thinking that the backup systems might help is problematic. You MUST know you can/will do it all yourself. Anything less is an invitation to disaster. I get it, this is a subtle difference in thought. You need to be aware of your secondary systems, but you must always presume they will fail when you need them. If you say, "This is better than that because the RSL..." then you are falling into the trap of relying on your secondary system.

You got me wrong, I was trying to choose a technique over an other...both EP methods end up pulling on both handles... In the case of having an RSL I do not see much advantages using the one hand per handle method... From what I understand, the weak point of the 2 hand 1 handle method is finding your reserve handle after the cutaway...The odds of that + an rsl fail are I think pretty low... The odds of an RSL failure are irrelevant. If you have one, it matters not that is was 1 in a million squared chance. If you alter your choice of which procedure to use because of the presence of the RSL, you are in some way relying on the RSL. If you think that the 2 hand on 1 handle is more acceptable in the presence of an RSL, then you have told me that you imagine the RSL will save you even if you cannot find the handle. That's a bad line of reasoning. Regardless of the procedure you choose, you must be certain in your own mind that you are GOING to pull the reserve handle. If you use the 2 hands on one handle method, you must be sure you know how to, and will, find and pull the reserve handle after. If you use the 1 hand per handle method, you must be certain that your one hand will be able to pull the respective handle. Regardless of which procedure you choose, you must also be able to everything with either hand alone. I have seen instances where a jumper's arm was broken on exit. If he chooses to deploy his main, and he has a mal, he's only got 1 hand to do EPs. If he chose to go for the reserve instead of the main, he still only has 1 hand to do it. You originally said, "I don't see any reason to use the one hand per handle method with an RSL installed... ". How is that not relying on the RSL for something, if not only the choice of methods?

Still unclear. Do you mean that the RISK of a two-out is higher (because of AADs), so we need to have a better understanding of our EPs? But once you have two-out, isn't the response is the same regardless of the AAD situation.

I have discovered rigs where the hidden end of the RSL did not have the reserve cable through the ring. That RSL would not pull the pin. Regardless of which EP was taught, the reserve ripcord would have to be pulled for that reserve to deploy. (Please, let's just ignore the "option" of letting the AAD do it.) That's ample reason for me to insist that the handle is pulled regardless of one's belief in one's RSL. You said, "I don't see any reason to use the one hand per handle method with an RSL installed...". If that means you don't think you should have to pull the ripcord, I urge you to reconsider.

It was not my intention to imply that SR perpetrated bank frauds. These were only examples, "what ifs", for you, since you had said "Whatever man, it paid my bills". The question I asked about using your name is not about legitimate competition. I have no problem with legitimate competition. So I asked about a form of competition designed to hurt you. If someone uses your name in order to damage you, you still have no problem with it? Maybe he uses your name and does good work. That still takes work out of your business, and money out of your pocket. Are you really okay with that sort of thing? A general allegation against SR is that SR improperly uses the names of businesses they are not. Is that really okay?

What ever man it paid my bills and put food on the table for my family. I have done a lot worse for less money. Its funny how you guys started this thread like an old fashioned witch hunt all because BSM donated some stuff. thanks for the laugh now go get a life people. I think BSM is great I may buy another subscription just to make up for the dumb asses that cancelled theirs. First off, we do agree that BSM isn't the one to complain about here. But you said, "Whatever man it paid my bills..." So, you'll be fine when someone steals your identity and runs up the bills on your credit cards. After all, he was just feeding his family. Okay, maybe that's too clearly to criminal. What if a competitor of yours uses your name and trashes your reputation? "Whatever man, he's just feeding his family?"

Hmmmmmm...is there something wrong there? As far a legal. you may want to investigate Skydive Arizona's law suit. It might get you to re-think "creative marketing" and legality. Then again, it might not. Take a look and then decide. I think that taxiway is confusing the notion of illegal with the notion of criminal. There are many things that are, in fact, illegal, but since they are not criminal, they can go on unless someone brings a civil action against the perpetrators. When things are criminal, we expect that police and courts will automatically get involved. But the absence of criminal proceedings does not negate that something may be illegal. For example, copyright infringement is illegal, but since it is not criminal, it must be pursued in a civil action.

Nothing wrong with a Dolphin. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3837351#3837351 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4030521#4030521 . To amplify on what David3 said - The Dolphin has met the TSO requirements, just as the other rigs have. Altico controls costs not by failing to meet TSO requirements, but by ensuring that other aspects of the rig are kept to minimum cost. You better like black, and you won't be able to get some of the other bells and whistles that you can get on other rigs. But, the harness and the reserve meet the same standards as the other rigs you mention. Fine, if the bells and whistles are important to you, stay away from a Dolphin. But you might have a tough time getting the exact bells and whistles you want buying used in the fist place. So think hard about what is really important to you. You might find a fine Dolphin that is "bare bones", but is otherwise perfect for you. It will likely let you make a bunch of jumps on the cost differential as well. Maybe that is important enough to consider should the opportunity present itself. Maybe that Dolphin gets you to where you can buy a new, custom, rig, quicker than some other used rig would.

Basically - I have had my Vigil stay on for over a week. I know someone who had theirs stay on for over a month. YOU NEED TO TURN IT OFF AT THE END OF THE DAY... Fixes all concerns. My loft, specifically my sofa, is 140 feet higher than the dropzone. (I actually had a survey person onsite for other reasons and had them give me altitude to the nearest 1/4 inch of the concrete below my balcony and then I dropped a tape measure... For the DZ I used the published FAA specs of the runway.) Only once (I intentionally leave it on and then inspect the next day just to see what happens just for my own curious mind) have had the Vigil stay on "forever". There was a weather front that came thru that day and that was all it took to confuse it enough to think my sofa was airborne since my sofa is already feet below airborne anyway. Note - the car ride home does go over 150 ft in altitude over the landing area, so there are many factors. Never the less, your comment OK. Since most people are not airborne at the end of the day, that would seem not to apply. Read out of context, would confuse someone to think, they don't have to turn off the Vigil. No matter what the manual says, turning it off fixes all chances of staying on and future misfires due to staying on going to a different DZ. It seems that most of this confusion relates to the use of the word "airborne". Whether truly airborne or not, the Vigil "thinks" it is airborne if it is 150' or more above the "ground reference" altitude. Since that 150' is the arming altitude, it is clear to me that once the Vigil has armed itself, it will not turn off until it has determined that it is no longer "airborne". I don't know what is the "native" language of the Vigil manual. But I would not be at all surprised if it was not English, and that some of the problem is introduced in the translation process. Imagine, if the original authors of the manual are not fluent in English, maybe they wouldn't notice how the meaning of their manual got confusing in the translation process. Since we now live in a global society, maybe we should always try to remember that linguistic problem can easily creep into things like manuals. Trying to focus on the word "airborne" to the exclusion of all other contextual information can lead to misinterpretation. The way I read those manual paragraphs that are quotes is that you should turn off your Vigil at the end of the day if there is a chance that it would arm itself by virtual of the 150' altitude difference. Otherwise, it will not turn off by itself. It is probably also important to state that finding that your Vigil is "on" at the beginning of a day should be considered suspicious. Don't just say, "okay, it is already on". Turn it off, and turn it on again, so there is no chance that the "ground reference" is not properly calibrated.

I didn't know wingsuiters use tubes to get out of line twists. He's the current troll of the skydiving forums. He barfs out some kind of shit, then sees how many people he can provoke. Please - MailedFist's post was as much baiting as many of pete's. Let's all ignore pete until he learns better. It is the only way.

Again, I must ask, what was the reason for the deletion? I am happy to try to write posts that won't be deleted, but I need to know how. I don't believe my post was a PA, for instance. I try hard not to write PAs in the first place. Draw lines where you like/must, but why were any posts deleted at all?

That sort of suggests to me that the needle keeps going round and round, but since it was only a smidge, it isn't conclusive. I wonder if you can easily tell what the analog reads above the 18K mark. I see that the numbered ticks appear in the "normal" places where they would appear on the 12K dial. But the first 6 are 1K ticks, the next 3 are 2K ticks, and the final 3 are 3K ticks. If it continue at 3K per tick, then the 0 position would be 21, and 22 could be 1/3 of the way to the "1" position. We should ask L&B if it continues at 3K per tick, or if it changes even more.

Not exactly. They are large enough to be towns, but they are military installations. That's great. Let the games begin!

Thanks Scrumpot, I wasn't very clear. To OP, still, go to the L&B website. Download a manual. You can read all about the device. If that's not enough, send them an email with your questions. I have always gotten answers from them very quickly, and they seem happy to hear from us. http://www.l-and-b.dk http://www.l-and-b.dk/altitrack.html

Before we get all excited about this - Aren't these all also the names of towns? I didn't check them all, but Fort Dix is a town in NJ, not just a particular military base, right? (Don't get me wrong. I'd love for SR to do something that would really piss off the government. I'm just not sure that this is it.)

I don't get it. There are still lots of posts talking to pete about the way he comes across. Was there something particular that led to the deletion of the posts you deleted?

http://www.l-and-b.dk I am sure they will be happy to answer all your questions. According to the manual, Altitrack has an altitude range to 39,999 feet. I don't know if the needle keeps going around or not. Ask them.

I think you might misunderstand the different models. Check here http://www.l-and-b.dk/altitrack.html The models are symmetrical or asymmetrical scales, with markings in feet or meters.

Ah, but VB did finally learn to speak less and listen more. Sure, it took a while. But the lesson was learned. Prove yourself the bigger person - learn the lesson sooner.

Agreed. I think we can all agree that writing manuals is a tricky thing to do well. If the manuals I see for common everyday devices are as poor as they seem to be, it is no wonder that the manual for a device as sophisticated as a modern AAD is easily as difficult to write well. That question goes more to their design philosophy. Apparently, they believe an AAD should be ready to "help" you in many cases where other AADs are still asleep. I don't like lots of things about their design philosophy. This is certainly one of the points with which I'll take issue. To me, it leads directly to the misfires in aircraft that have been reported. If the device arms during the climb through the firing window, well, it could decide to fire until you have climbed above that firing window. This whole question of design philosophy comes down to one's expectations from an AAD, which in itself may be an indicator of how the sport is changing. I believe an AAD should not fire unless it is extremely clear that you are low and fast and without a parachute. One might say that my AAD philosophy is "Don't fire if you can find a reason not to." The Vigil's designers seem to take a different position - that the AAD should try to save you under many circumstances that are far less clear than I like. One might say that their AAD philosophy is "If you can find a reason to fire, do." That's really what the whole fuss is about, isn't it? That some of us agree with they way they are thinking, while others do not? Me? I'm "old school". I'd rather people are sad that my AAD didn't save me, than have them sad that it brought down an aircraft full of people.

I would want to confirm first that 1 month of undisturbed bedbug infestation would not damage a rig. Anyway, what's to stop the little critters from laying more eggs during that month? You figure they won't lay more eggs if they don't have any blood to eat?

Never mind. As I did more research about the ways I could think of to accomplish this, it became apparent that they are all too dangerous for casual use. But, to answer the direct question of how? I was thinking of using something like a chest freezer filled with nitrogen or perhaps a welding shielding gas to displace the oxygen. But, as I looked into it, it became apparent that atmospheres depleted of breathable oxygen are very very dangerous.