dudeman17

(For the purposes of this conversation, forget the front chutes.) I don't think anyone is suggesting that Cooper was given more than two back chutes. The question is whether the FBI COLLECTED more than two back chutes before giving him two. There are reports that Cossey also gave back chutes, although I realize that his credibility with reporters and researchers is questionable. (In one of the magazine interviews that Flyjack posted a while back, Cossey claimed that he gave back chutes, one of which was a sport rig that would have the D-rings. That might allow Cooper to use the dummy reserve container to hold some of the money.) If one of Hayden's rigs was not actually given to Cooper, that might make it easier for him to get it back from the FBI. ----- Maybe you'll give one as a tip if you ever show up to Elsinore for a jump after your move. I refer to the title...

That's interesting. There is a part number, but no serial number. I would expect there to be a serial number for the whole harness/container assembly, I wonder if that is a part number for that piece of the container. How might you reconcile it? This subject comes up from time to time, and you always state that two rigs were furnished by Hayden, and two were given to Cooper. But Flyjack's info infers two rigs accounted for, so Cooper must have jumped with a third. Do you have a theory? Also... Considering the way the FBI deals with evidence, such as the Amboy chute, do you think the FBI would have given that back to him so easily if that was the one left on the plane? ------------ I'd love to read Ha Ha Ha. Any chance you'd part with one of your copies?

Somewhere on the container (often on the backpad, up against the wearer's back) is a little pocket where the packing card goes. Usually there's a little flap that folds out of it, and that is usually where the container info is. I was speculating 'over there' the possibility that someone might have written the container SN on one report, and someone else might have written the canopy SN on the other. But with the specificity of the info you provide, different size canopies and all, that would appear to not be the case.

Maybe, but... That particular label is for the harness itself. The rig consists of three* major components, the harness*, the container*, and the parachute canopy. They would have separate part #'s, serial #'s, and dates of manufacture. * The harness and container are separate components, but are then sewn together as one unit. They could make a batch of harnesses, then use the same harness type on different container types. That label seems to indicate that it's just for the harness. The other stamped number has a 'P', indicating a part #, and there doesn't seem to be a serial # for it. Somewhere on the container I believe would be another label for the harness/container assembly, and I would expect that to have the serial #. (The canopy is a separate component altogether, and any of a number of canopies could be installed in a rig, as long as the pack volume was compatible with the container size.) Also note that the DOM of the harness is APRIL of '57, while the canopy's DOM is SEPTEMBER of '57. -------- From your previous post... The information lists seem to be from the canopies themselves, and would indeed indicate different rigs. That they were both packed by Cossey on the same day might indicate that those are both of Hayden's rigs. If so, then that supports your original conclusion - If both of Hayden's rigs are accounted for, then what rig did Cooper jump and where did it come from? Also of note from the first post... That picture of the replica rig also shows the ripcord housing going to the left side, not the usual right side. And the ripcord is not routed through the housing, you can see the rc cable and handle stowed under the pack opening bands. Those bands had actual metal coiled springs in them. In early days before soft closing loops, one side flap of the container had metal cones, which would fit through grommets on the other side flap, then the ripcord pins would go through holes in the cones. Sometimes the cones and grommets would not want to separate, causing a 'total' malfunction, where the container did not open. Those spring loaded bands would pull the flaps apart, opening the container.

Do you (or anyone else) remember "Better a transient than me..."?

I always liked this one... The Gear Scaries. Sometimes my gear scares me It's a long way up To be hanging from strings and rags So I think really hard And figure it all out again And everything goes fine For a while And then I go do something Scary again Like watch someone open Do I really believe that? I better Because it's my turn now I just keep going through the process Because I started when I was too Young to know any better And now I can't stop. Skratch Garrison ,

Ah, United We Fall, by the late, great Pat Works. I still have my well-worn copy. Back in the day, even before my time, he used to put out a newsletter called the RWunderground, and I believe UWF is an anthology from that. How recently and where did you find it? He also had another great book, The Art of Freefall Relative Work. I lost my copy of that many years ago when I gave it to an up-and-coming student and never got it back. Hopefully they did the same. I, for one, would absolutely still recommend these timeless works for anyone interested in skydiving and it's history. Perhaps someone could convince Jan to re-issue them.

As usual you totally miss the point. Nobody is claiming they were. But the last line in the above document indicates that the 'fully extended' light flashed. (Whether or not that is actually true.) I think that is what prompted Shutter's comment. Describes most of your comments.

The farther he descends the stairs, the more his weight would open them, fulcrums, leverage and all that. As he walked back up, that leverage would reverse. I guess the question then would be, how much effect on the stairs does his weight give at the fifth step, the first one past the hinge. ------------------------- The last line in this document seems to indicate that the 'fully extended' light came on...

That's an interesting thought. Not sure what the percentage of weight difference affecting the stairs would be, I would think that would depend partly on the airspeed. It is known that that is how McNally exited, are there reports on stair response / pressure bump for his exit? Still, there would be a singular moment when whatever weight effect is removed. As opposed to... I wouldn't think that would cause the pressure bump, because the weight transfer would be more gradual.

'go in here' hehe I think it was '80, I went to the infamous Ghoulidge annual Christmas - New Year's boogie. Ended up doing my first demo. They were doing a jump into a nearby country club / golf course for their 'All America Days', or some such. They had someone with a red canopy, and someone with a white one. Mine just happened to be blue. Didn't have a whole lot of jumps at the time (started in '79), so they asked me how my accuracy was. 'Pretty good, I think', I told them, so they said they'd watch me on my next jump. Had a malfunction, cut away to a round reserve. By the time I landed and got back to the hangar, they had retrieved my canopy, straightened it out, had a rig for me to pack it into, and had a rigger arranged to pack my reserve. As soon as I was packed we climbed into a 182 and went to do the demo. Had a great time, they fed us a great lunch, and we flew and jumped back into the dz, where my rig was waiting for me, reserve repacked. What a place, what an era. And yes, of course I bought the beer...

(Sorry, I'm not good at finding and linking stuff, but...) In that cell phone video from when she got shot, at the beginning there is a guy on the left who has a backpack on that looks like it might have been made from an old rig. Anyone else see that?

(Sorry, I didn't respond to your other question because nwt's answer was correct.) I'd like to see that, too. If both ends were open, that could be hugely problematic. If the pilot chute got out the wrong end, it would create a pilot chute in tow. If there was enough force to pull the pin, that could create a horrible mess. If the ends had velcro closures, that could impede normal deployment, and the hook side would probably put wear on the bridle. Perhaps they could just tack the one end closed, and pick it to change...

If they jumped into one of the many concerts they threw at Anaheim Stadium in those days, then I saw it.

That's not accurate. What that handle does is open the top of the BOC. The bottom seam is still attached to the container. When the reserve side AFF-I pulls that handle, it exposes the pilot chute. The wind usually deploys it, but if it hesitates in the burble the instructor can grab it and throw it. It would not be suitable for a self-deployed left handed pull.

Sometime in the mid-70's I had occasion to help the police with a composite sketch and that is exactly the type of system they used.

I hope they got Beeman's in the great beyond...

I'm familiar with this incident, but I don't think that was what they were talking about. It sounded like they were talking about a student they had that was trying to follow standard student EP's. Obviously I agree with that. I'm surprised that Dan BC signed off on it. And an AAD. But the idea is that one should never be reliant on them. Actually the RSL WILL deploy the reserve before you pull the reserve handle. If it doesn't, you haven't sequenced it properly. But again, DON'T rely on the RSL, DO pull the reserve handle. I agree that we're not going to go back to several months or weeks of FJC before the first jump. But I don't necessarily agree that we're fighting life-long instincts. For most students, everything in parachuting is brand new stuff and they regard it as such. I think that training should stress not just WHAT they need to do, but WHY they're doing it that way. Then, when stuff happens, they're less reliant on remembering 'what did the instructor say?', and more that it will make sense to them what they should do. Also, especially with EP's, I think they should be trained to VERBALIZE the sequence as they do it. Then when they have a malfunction, they will find themselves TELLING themselves exactly what to do. And, of course, they should continue to train EP's for all the months and years that they continue to jump.

I had a little time the other day so I called and had a chat with one of the managers at Perris' school. To my surprise, it turns out that indeed they have changed their EP's to what David describes. It does vary from USPA. The rationale was that some time ago they had an incident where someone had a malfunction. After grabbing red, they looked for silver but could not see it. The person I was talking to wasn't sure if it was due to a baggy jumpsuit or perhaps a well-endowed female. The person apparently spent some time looking for the reserve handle before pulling the cutaway, and ended up cutting away lower than desired. The school decided to change the EP's to ensure a more timely cutaway. I suppose I can follow the reasoning, but I disagree with the decision. I can not see changing well established, logical, tried and true procedures for everybody due to an outlier event. Cutting away and going back into freefall is certainly not going to make it easier for that person to find the handle, and will make it harder for the normal student. This places a higher reliance on the RSL, which I think is a bad idea. I think the answer is more training. It should be stressed that initiating EP's in a timely fashion is crucial. For the person who might have trouble seeing the handle, whether it be a top-heavy female, or perhaps a larger, barrel-chested male, or a heavier person who wears a baggy suit to help with fall rate, I think that scenario should be predictably apparent. I think training should include that if one can't see the handle, they can still be familiar with where it will be and focus on that area at the appropriate time during EP's. For the baggy suit, part of the pre-jump routine can be to grab the suit by the armpits or inseam of the sleeves and pull the bagginess out from between the lift webs. If the bagginess were to return and indeed be covering the handle during EP's... Well, I'll borrow from Binary's knife-and-fork analogy: If you were sitting down for a meal, and your napkin was covering your fork, would you panic and think 'I can't find my fork, I'm going to starve to death!'? No, you'd simply move/reach under the napkin and grab the fork. So should be your reaction to suit material covering a handle. Skydiving requires the ability for that level of focus, even in the face of a high-speed spinning malfunction. Binary's idea of training for what you're likely to do rather than what you need to do is a horrible idea. You should train for what you need to do, and train until it IS what you WILL do. My advice for David or anyone else would be - While you're under the purview of a school, do what your live, in-person instructors train you to do. When you're licensed and on your own, think things through. Talk to several instructors and experienced people you trust, and decide what makes best sense, and adjust/re-train as appropriate. Safety's a skill. Survival's an art. (JS)

Sure, Wendy, but you know how conversations evolve. An error this basic needs to be addressed, and it started with David's own error in posts 21 and 23. I am an AFF-I who has taught at Perris, and the last thing I said was for him to confirm this with his instructors there. Just lookin' out for the kids, you do that a lot yourself...

You both still have it wrong. AFF EP's are definitely both hands on each handle - both hands pulling the cutaway handle, then both hands pulling the reserve handle. It's extremely methodical to absolutely ensure that the cutaway happens first, then the reserve pull. The part you're getting wrong is that after both hands are on the cutaway handle, but before it is pulled, you look at the reserve handle so that you know where you're going next. That is standard USPA AFF. (I've been teaching it since 1990.) David, you need to correct this in your mind. Talk to your instructor again, they will confirm this. If the instructor you talk to does not agree, then you need to talk to the school manager or Dan BC so that they can be corrected. Here, from Perris, start at about 4:45 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbA_LwmAUd4

David and Binary have it wrong. nwt and CoolBeans have it right. AFF EPs are: The essential difference being to look at silver before peel-pull red. The reason is that when you cut away you go back into freefall, which (especially for a student) can be discombobulating, which is not the time you want to be searching for your life-saving next handle. There have been people found next to their craters with their thumb in the large (3)ring. (No, you don't rely on your RSL.)

(I might be having a senior moment but) who's EHS?

That student in yellow FLAILS, ha! Yeah, yeah, I know... Haven't heard from the Kid in a while.

As a fiction writer you're entitled to take some license. But it's appreciable that you want to be as accurate as possible. A sport or student rig left in the plane is highly unlikely. Much more plausible the bailout rig. In some smaller jump planes I've seen the pilot seat's backpad removed and the rig used as the backpad to be less cumbersome. She could already be leaning on it (if she's the pilot), and all she'd have to do is put her arms through the harness and attach the chest and leg straps. Also, the basic round canopy of the bailout rig would contribute to the tree landing. Yeah, it would be difficult to unbuckle the leg straps while hanging in it, but it's not impossible, so no reason to not have her do it. Climbing down the tree would be awkward. It sounds like you want her to 'romantically' land in his arms. Okay, so she's lower than fifteen feet. No problem.