pchapman

Having blood rush to one's head doesn't make one faint. It might be uncomfortable and distracting but there's no fainting involved, which is normally about lack of blood flow. Adding multiple negative G's is tough, and aerobatic pilots have to acclimatize themselves to it, but negative G on its own doesn't cause fainting. Kids can hang upside down from monkey bars in the playground, and they don't all faint and fall. If one doesn't notice something in freefall it would be because one is really focused on other things -- just like there are times when one hardly notices the wind noise (or one's dirt alert...) in freefall. The 'red head' comment is interesting. Don't know to what degree that applies. Just guessing, but possibly body movement in freefall or tunnel helps promote circulation and reducing blood pooling. And like manseman said, if one is doing a hand stand, especially if not used to doing it a lot, the high muscle tension may cause one to increase pressure in the head too, just when one should be relaxing as much as possible to avoid adding blood pressure at the head.

And to add to that for the OP, the standard advice is that you get the insurance first, then go skydiving. Keeps the extreme sport out of all those questions asked when signing up for insurance.

There also is 400 lb Dacron around. Hasn't worked out so well on super lightweight Base canopies though... Some breakage issues. A much as the average jumps knows, including me, there haven't been any big advances in dacron line technology lately.

OK, both of those apply to the old style cutters. Thanks for the refresher, forcing me to dig some more. Re: 2009_562FINALREPORT.pdf This is the well known Polish student fatality. There were extensive tests with cutters and investigation into cutter hardness. The loop in the accident was partially cut and then torn the rest of the way (perhaps by impact); although in most tests the cutters worked fine, they were able to replicate the problem on the ground at least once; cutter edges could be seen to have been damaged when they cut into the closing loop. Tests did show that the newer style cutters have a greater hardness (eg ~560 HB) than old ones (eg ~475 HB) ... but still less than two other brands of AAD's (eg, another circular cutter, which is likely the Vigil at ~634HB, and a straight blade cutter that must by the Cypres at ~722HB) Re: 2009_620_RK_English.pdf So that was a no injury case where the Argus wasn't involved with the actual situation. But it fired after a low reserve pull, and apparently with no tension on the loop, it failed to cut the loop fully. (Cutter at backpad so loop is always through it.) However, the accident board got no AAD data from Aviacom. With the apparently quite low reserve opening, they were left to speculate whether the student pulled first or the AAD fired first. If the latter were true, it would mean it failed to cut even with tension on the loop. They write that based on the research after the other Polish incident, it is possible for an Argus to fail to cut even with sufficient tension on the loop. It was a 2006 Argus, and while it didn't say specifically, probably thus probably had the pre 2007 cutter. (That incident didn't get too much press, but I found the doc on my hard drive so I must have seen it before.) So overall the conclusion remains for me: - There has never been a new style cutter that has failed that we know of (excluding foreign object damage by a steel bearing) - That doesn't mean the new cutters can't fail, but they haven't yet. - The new cutters are better: they are hardened more than the old ones which were responsible for all the incidents - But they are still softer than other companies' cutters Some people may conclude (a) you shouldn't ban something if there's no proof that it won't work, or (b) you can ban something if you think it is worse than other similar devices, given a prior poor track record. Edit: To be clear, my earlier post gives the wrong implication about the Polish fatality. Initially there was some question about the cutter's performance, but in the end it was clear that the loop had only been partially cut and probably didn't free itself from the cutter until impact, holding the reserve container closed until then. The PIA site also includes one more incident that was less talked about due to lack of information: -- Italy Jan 2008 -- (Note the report is 2010, but the incident seems to be no later than Jan 2008) Reserve popped on the ground. Looks like the Argus had activated and partially cut some time earlier, and then perhaps the final fibres of the loop broke while the rig was sitting on the ground. No additional info. Not clear what the AAD or cutter date was, but since the rig was from 2005, and it happened only a few months after the new style cutters went into production, it was likely an old style cutter. Excuse me if I'm rushing through all of this a bit, but I have limited time to devote to summarizing all this Argus stuff...

That's interesting. Were they the drawings from the PIA site? Still, isn't the HARDNESS different? That's what Aviacom wrote. SB AMMO050811 I'll defer to you as at the moment I'm not going to re-read the myriad of Argus related bulletins, reports, and documents on my computer to figure it all out again! Still, a quick recap for myself and anyone: Feb 2011 San Marcos Texas -- Cutter failed to cut fully. The mystery steel bearing fell out of the cutter when it was opened for examination. Damage found to the cutter edge. No proof of anything, but it suggested the foreign object damaged the cutter. It was a new style cutter (2008) but apparently didn't fail 'on its own'. Sept 2010 Evora, Portugal -- Popped in the airplane due to too fast descent, didn't fully cut, they say because leaning back on the rig took tension off the too long & unsiliconed reserve loop. For some this may be an acceptable explanation, for others that's just excuses for a poor cutter. Edit: I believe it was one of the older cutters. Not quite clear to me yet but a bunch of cutter tests during the investigation on similar cutters were on the older style cutter. July 2009 Poland -- Student fatality, no pull. A report said cutter cut at the right altitude, and cut properly (I wonder), but the reserve didn't come out of the container until impact. Jan 2007 cutter (old style). After that we got the bulletins on getting the newer cutter. Also, the cutters USUALLY cut ok. Guess your viewpoint an Arguses will differ whether you want to a) just wear an AAD because someone says you have to b) wear an AAD to give you a 99%(?) chance of cutting the loop (which is way, way better than no AAD) c) wear an AAD to give you a near 100% chance of cutting the loop.

I am respectful in direct communications but use more emotional terminology in order to emphasize the issue when discussing it here. I have no particular dog in this fight, so it is a bit of a tempest in a teacup on my part. We know there are always plenty of incorrect statements in the media after a skydiving accident. We all live with that and roll our eyes. But here it pains me that the media (and possibly Flores or a lawyer) are using that very official sounding "FAA report" as a source of claims about the state of the gear, when the report has so many problems, and has much that needs expanding on. If some respected authority says "the gear was heavily worn", that's one thing. Even if I'd like more information, it could well be true. But when the same authority mentions critical main closing flap velcro on an Eclipse, one is left confused about the whole thing. Extraordinary claims in the report are not backed up at all. It is possible that a rig could be packed up with lines with knots put in them, but that is so remarkable it needs followup. The reports' mentioning of "industry standards" for the minimum strength of velcro is incorrect. We have no particular minimum standards but only our judgement. The Poynters' section he quotes lists minimum shear and peel strengths for brand new velcro, not velcro in service. It is as if a rigger with zero understanding of the sport market had written that section. I didn't say he was an idiot, just that he looks like an idiot at face value. He may have a good explanation why his name got attached to a shoddy report that's out in public, and I invite him to fill in the rather large blanks. If such a terrible report is released to the public and interpreted as something authoritative, then a better one should be too. It does bring up the curious point: Where did the report come from? It looks more like some internal brief report. Are those reports in the "NPTRS Query System" that are "For Official Use Only", regularly made public or was this some sort of FOIA request? If I say something dumb and incorrect in a dz.com discussion, it can be quickly fixed or countered by another poster and we all learn. If my name goes out on a "FAA report" to the public and looks dumb, I'd be personally a lot more concerned.

A number of locals jump them and I have no problem servicing their rigs. Cheap because so many dislike them. Only allowed on a few brands of rigs. I don't recall any issues with the most recent type of cutters on them, although Argus' history is long and complex so I could be wrong. Earlier cutters had occasional issues. They are not supported by the company but are supported by dealers (eg Chuting Star) who can do the 4 year checks. Not sure about the supply of cutters. Cost more at every repack as the latest rules were to replace batteries (a type of camera battery) every repack. That's what I recall off the top of my head anyway. Probably best to not recommend an Argus to anyone who isn't already familiar with them.

God knows you might be right. I'm not expecting him to argue on dz.com, but talk to a friend or make a public statement to make up for the other public statement. Yeah, he can probably claim confidentiality even now because he inspected gear on the behalf of the FAA, his client. He can keep looking like an idiot if he wants. Most of his emergency parachute rigging clients won't know or care, nor will he care if I say he sounds like an idiot, every time his name comes up, since I'm not anybody important nor in the area he rigs...

Do you or someone else who knows him want to give him a call?? I should but haven't yet. He might respond better to someone who isn't a total stranger. I sent him and the FSDO respectful emails after the original story broke, and emailed him a couple days ago when it all resurfaced. Haven't heard any response. At the moment there's a report out there with his name on it, that just about any experienced skydiver thinks is total crap. It wouldn't matter much if nobody paid attention to it, but the "FAA report" -- which sounds pretty official -- has been quoted on the news whenever Flores' incident comes up. If that report was mine, I'd sure want to not look like a total idiot in front of the whole skydiving community, and explain what the situation really was. I hope there's no "confidentiality" excuse -- no point in allowing bad information go public and then not correct it.

You dont know anything about the professional reputation of the Master Rigger involved in the inspection of that rig. I would say: Both statements are correct. It does indeed "look like" total crap... but that seems very unlike the well respected Allen Silver. Did he only have a few minutes to examine the gear, and reported verbally to an FAA guy who didn't know parachutes? Is he out of touch with skydiving rigs despite his past experience and familiarity with bailout rigs? Whatever faults the rig might have had, are impossible to tell from the so called FAA report. I wish Mr. Silver would give his side of the story.

Or, alternatively, you may choose not to dick around like an idiot for ages through multiple diving spirals with a high performance canopy, before deciding you might want to cut away. (Granted, we all get stupid and distracted sometimes, and the jumper was not inexperienced.)

So the Vortex is changing from laying the bridle 'down from top to bottom, across the side flap', to the 'up from the bottom' method, to reduce the chance of the pin piercing the bridle and locking the container. What I find interesting is that this is the first time I recall seeing a company completely change their system, instead of just making the new method an option while retaining the old method. I don't think anyone has proved that the top-to-bottom method necessarily has a risk of locking up, unless packed with poor pin and bridle placement. Nevertheless, the mechanisms of pin lock are still fairly hard to duplicate.

Why not use or have an RSL connected? Because it wasn't cool or considered necessary, because other experienced jumpers didn't use RSL's. Because for old timers, RSL's were something optional, that gear didn't have unless you special ordered it. Because you used to be expected to pull both handles yourself or die, and accepted that. Because you believed you should try to deploy parachutes when stable for the best results. Because you want the choice of either pulling the reserve immediately, or taking a delay to get more stable. [Edit:] Because RSL's (without a Collins lanyard, which most did not have) were seen as being a danger in case of riser breakage.(Which hasn't been happening much since the 1990s when ZP canopies with small lines were new on the market.) Things are changing though. Landing in very high winds is another reason to disconnect after opening.

It isn't like 200 is a universal number. In Canada you need a B license, which one can qualify for with a minimum of 50 jumps, but of course not everyone gets every license at the minimum. Either way, skydivers are expected to have a bunch of jumps after they are no longer students, before getting distracted by a camera. As for Finnish, UK, or Spanish rules... I have no clue.

I sure don't know US labor law, but it sounds hard to support their action if they employ people as some sort of independent contractors. As a full time salaried employees, maybe. Wonder what the guvmint would say...

It may not be relevant or important to you, but the third party liability insurance I get through my Canadian skydiving association (CSPA) is void when jumping at a foreign dropzone that is not recognized by that country's FAI-recognized parachuting association. So one takes ones chances at a non-USPA DZ. I don't know whether that applies to any insurance a British jumper might have.

I guess that's where the tricky bit lies. Make a bunch of really conservative assumptions, worrying about every eventuality, and the price goes up and may not be seen as "fair". Managing a fair lifetime membership becomes as complex as managing a pension plan. So in the end they just jack the price way up to discourage anyone who doesn't in effect want to make a large donation to the USPA, to make sure the USPA doesn't get screwed 40 years down the road. ("Crap, they cured cancer, banned swooping, liability insurance is through the roof... and our lifetime members are living to age 90?")

FWIW, my opinion differs. Tough luck for the idiot Joe Publics. Just like learning to skateboard doesn't mean you slide down railings above concrete steps the first day. And if you learn to ski you aren't dropped off by helicopter onto a steep Alaskan ridge line. And snowmobiling doesn't usually involve doing backloops with it off a ramp. And your first airplane flight lesson doesn't involve snap rolls on takeoff like you see at airshows. One might get the above impressions if one just watches youtube and are an idiot. Tough luck for such people if there's a skydiving accident that makes the news, that wasn't related to safe and sane student instruction. Happens all the time with other forms of skydiving by experienced jumpers. All that people know is there was a skydiving accident.

If someone wants to make the USPA feel a bit old fashioned, or get them feeling more competitive... remind them that in the last couple years, we hicks up in Canada with about 1/10th the members have had streaming of our CSPA AGM.

I haven't packed enough Icon combinations to know for sure, but overstuffed (or at least fully stuffed) Icons tend to be a little bulgy and start to make it hard to close the riser covers neatly. (Even when following the manual to try to make the reserve pack thin in the ears, since the freebag is actually quite fat in the ears.) They don't seem to have much separation between the reserve and the covers. Just my opinion though, and there will be better ones out there. I bet this isn't a case where you are buying both reserve and rig brand new, so you may have less choice, but I'm just standing up for a rigger's point of view.

http://www.csrbraids.com/

TK is just being realistic. And he is someone who has helped many people get into skydiving. There just isn't a lot of gear out there that is going to fit and be legal, and jumpers willing to take you due to their judgments on safety. Doing tandems is one thing, but solo jumps is another. I now realize that even the largest reserve parachute built by one of the top companies for solo jumpers is only certified to 300 lbs, not enough for you and equipment. You would need to use adapted tandem or military equipment... which is generally very expensive. Doesn't stop you from phoning around and seeing if some place can take you though.

So, do USPA members make some sort of pledge to only conduct instruction according to USPA rules, where ever they are in the world? Does this apply to instruction only, not their personal jumps? I would have hoped someone with USPA instructional ratings could go to a non USPA DZ, or elsewhere in the world, and ignore USPA rules if it isn't a jump intended to be under the USPA system. After all, there are foreigners in other countries who have both USPA and their own countries' instructional ratings. Any help is appreciated in understanding what restrictions there are on USPA members, license holders, and instructors to doing jumps under other systems.

"And that's just because of 16 year olds?"

Whatever the realities of the liability situation in the US, it seems this move is a capitulation, giving in and letting the world of lawyers and liability win. And imposing that view of the world on all USPA skydivers in the US instead of letting them make choices on their own. Which is why some jumpers will always hate this kind of rule. You may see liability as something real and dangerous, while some of us further from the action see it as something theoretical. If there's a threat from a stupid system, don't give in to it. The industry made it this far, why should anything be different than in 1960? But if someone is closer to the lawsuits that actually happen, or have more assets in the industry, yes I understand that their opinion may be different. I've done enough skydiving in my life that if the whole industry in the US goes down because of some stupid legal system, I can walk away. Your problem, good riddance.