davelepka

I highlighted the important part in bold. The vigilance and care provided to the inexperienced jumpers takes the form of not selling them equipment that is beyond their experience/skill sets. Safety in skydiving needs to be in the form of 'action' and not 'reaction'. If a potentially unsafe situation is allowed to exist until such time that it proves itself to be unsafe, then an incident has already takes place and damage has been done. You might be able to 'clean up' the situation moving forward, and prevent another incident or further damage, but what's done is done and in the case of incidents or injury, that's not OK. The idea is to act before a situation can manifest itself into an incident. Plan your jumps ahead of time, and ensure that every facet of that plan, the who, where, when, what, etc, all meet the generally accpeted norms for what would be considered 'safe'. No joke, god help the people who actually have to jump with you. Time and time again, you have proven to have a veiwpoint that is greatly skewed away from what I like to call 'reality', and sooner or later it's going to bite you in your real ass, and even though I'm not a religous man, I literally pray that you don't take anyone down with you when the time comes.

I will add that letting students jump without shirts doesn't seem like the best idea. It's not all that 'hygenic' if it's hot enough to make a shirtless jump comfortable. You might be able to wash a harness, but not during the day, and those things have to go on other students. The other thing is that the student has zero protection from abbrasions or other injuries caused by the harness webbing making direct contact with the skin. A hard opening could easliy cause cuts or friction burns to the student if the harness shifts in the just the right direction. Besides, again, on a day hot enough to make a shirtless jump seem like a good idea, what TI out there is fighting for their students to go shirtless? (I make all of the above comments assuming we're talking about a male student jumping without a shirt, a female student would be different. If a female student was interested in the same, but also was going to sweat enough to damage a harness, my comments remain valid)

I'd be more concerned about the packers getting sweat on the canopies than the students stinking up the harnesses. The main reason being that washing the harnesses is easy. Submerge them in clean cold water, let soak, drain and repeat serveral times. The salt and impurities from the sweat will dissolve into the water and be flushed out when you rinse. No disassembly or repacks needed. Canopies (and rigs) are much harder (or impossible) to wash, and the damage will be harder to avoid. Especially canopies, whose center cells already take a beating during a regular (dry) pack job, get significantly more wear when you bring a shirtless, sweaty packer into the mix.

That's great. So who is it?

Yes. Beyond that, hold off on any 'training' until it's provided by the coach you're going to jump with. Your coach will have access to your logbook and presumably the AFFI's you've jumped with, and they will have the best idea of how to train you for the given jump. Every DZ uses a slightly different method of training students. Some use different terms, some use different dive flows, etc, so in the end your best bet is to keep it all 'in house' and go with the program they're presenting. Once you get a license, and are 'on your own', by all means shop around for thoughts or ideas on how to figure stuff out. There's no chance that you'll pick up advice that will be contraty to your coach, as there will be no coach. Of course, in your early days 'on your own' avoid trying anything too far from the 'norm' without running it past a coach or AFFI at your DZ. A lot can be lost in the translation when reading the written word, and it would suck for you to make a jump based on a misunderstanding of something you read or were told online. Get some 'real world' approval before moving forward with just about anything for your first 50 or 100 jumps. You'll pick up a lot of 'common sense' during that time, and will be better at seperating the bull from the shit.

That's not what it looks like to me. Watch DSE's demo video, and you'll see that there are loop handles mounted to the outside of the suit with a lanyard that threads through the zipper pocket and then attaches to the cutaway or reserve ripcord cable with a rapide link. The idea is that pulling the loop handle will in-turn pull on the cutaway/ripcord cable, and enact the cutaway and reserve ripcord pull. In my opinion, that alters the operation of the rig. The design of the rig provides for the jumper being able to remove the handles from the MLW, and pull with leverage in the opposite direction of the cables allowing for the easiet possible extraction. Consider a rig where the reserve activation involved pulling a soft loop attached to a cable, and the only direciton of force you could apply would be perpendicular to the direction of the cable, forcing the jumper to pull the cable sideways to enact a reserve deployment. Do you think such a design would pass a TSO test? The video clearly shows pull forces in excess of 50lbs, which is way over the standard currently used in skydiving. The suit alters the basic function of the rig such that it's well outside the standard. and no longer functional.

This is very wrong. As we have seen on youtube many times, a departing main canopy can and will snag some part of the reserve on the way out, turning two good canopies into zero good canopies. A two-out in a bi-plane or side by side is made up of two good canopies, and once they're out, if they haven't tangled, the chances are that they won't. An open canopy is a 'closed loop' from one riser, up to the canopy, and down to the other riser. There is no way to for them to tangle, just like if you had two rings, you cannot get them to intertwine. However, once you cutaway the main, you now have one ring (the reserve) and one 'string' (the main). It's easy to see how you could tie a string around a ring. Picture a bi-plane with the main in front. If you cutaway, the main lines, risers, toggles, and RSL hardward all will be dragged up and over the nose of the reserve, and I can't see that as being good. In terms of what the student needs to know about a two-out, there's a simple qualifier for a cutaway. Of course, the downplane is what needs to be cutaway as you can't land a downplane, so the rule for students can be as simple as 'if the canopies are touching, don't cutaway, if they are seperated, you can cutaway'. Even if the downplane isn't fully formed, any seperation of the two canopies will facilitate a 'clean' cutaway.

Static line or otherwise you need to teach students about two-outs. If you're sending them out of the plane with two canopies, there's a chance that both of them will end up out of the container. The AAD could misfire at any time. The reseve closing loop could break. The student might screw up and dump the reserve into a good main canopy.

The leader guy gives the count and goes, and the followers should plan to leave 1/10 of a second later. The idea being that you give the leader guy the head start, but all that does is put him below and behind you on the track. This way both followers start off the dive above and ahead, also knows as advantage #1 and advantage #2. It's always easier to sink and slow down into your slot than it is to float and speed up, so if you leave a hair later than the leader guy, you never get low or behind (well, you never start off low and behind). In terms the exit 'order' for the other two, by giving the leader guy the head start, there's no worry about his burble. The rear floater, like almost any jump where you're the rear floater, can sort of 'ooze' down the side of the plane and have all the clear air they want. The middle person (or anyone in the door) has to step out to clear the door sill, so there's always a half-slice of clean air between them and the plane, between that and the half-slice the rear floater can grab from under the plane, everyone has all the air they need. The biggest thing to remember about tracking dives is that the leader guy will be coming toward you the whole time if you leave after him. It's not like RW or cfreefly where the base goes, and just gets further and further away, the base in this case is meeting you half-way(ish). So there's no need to 'rush' the door or exit, you can take your time and still be 'in the dive' fairly fast.

Have seen a weight belt hung off of the chest rings on a fully articulated harness. It was several years ago, so I'm not 100% on the details, but it also had a strap that went around the jumper, and they were all secured with RSL type quick-release shackles. The jumper was a rigger, so I'm sure they made some sort of provision making sure it didn't interfere with their handles. I've also seen a Jav that had weight pockets built into the container. I think they were in the main pack tray, or something like that. It was built for a small jumper who always jumped with weights, but I think they still needed a weight belt because the rig could only hold so much.

As mentioned, some older rigs are like this. It's handy for rigs that didn't have keepers on the reserve risers for the 'nose' of the toggle. The seal thread would pass through the nose and into the riser to keep it in place and prevent a premature brake release. Pretty old-school stuff.

Facebook

I can't help but think that this is some sort of 'fantasy' realized. I haven't seen the movie yet, but with a villian named 'Bane', and the Joker from the last movie promoting 'general chaos' for the sake of 'chaos', this really smacks of some guy who wanted to play out a scene from the movie. Tear gas, guns, explosives, it certainly wouldn't be out of place in a super hero movie screen-play. Of coruse, this is just speculation. Watch it turn out to be some girl he liked was seeing the movie without him. I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook has something to do with this, either the guy read something on there that set him off, or he wronte something on there that should have tipped others off, I'll bet the 'F' word comes up sooner or later.

A good reason not to cut the offending brake line is that it's not as simple as it seems. As someone else mentioned, you would need to cut both of them to make a 'symetrical' canopy, because even in full flight the brake lines hold tail in place and in line with the rest of the canopy. Additionally, if you cut both brake lines, and allow the tail to fly free, your rear riser flare will only effect the canopy from the mid-chord to the D-lines, as the tail won't be suspended (or suspend any weight) at all. So your effective flying area will be reduced, and in turn your stall speed will go up, and flare effectiveness will go down. Even when ladning only on rears, the steering lines hold the tail in place and allow it to take some of the load during the plane-out and flare. This is true on any canopy, and BASE jumpers will confirm that even their BASE canopies come in different when they have to toss their toggles to clear a line-over. If you're flying a Velo at 2.2, you should be good enough to compensate for the knotted brake line, and get enough flare out of the rears (or one rear, one toggle) in order to have a 'good' landing. If you're flying a Velo at any loading and don't feel confident in your ability to do that, you're in over your head. This is the prime example for choosing a canopy for the worst case scenario. If this mal had occured below the hard deck, you would be stuck landing the comprimised canopy, and this is where your canopy should be forgiving enough to make up for your lack of skill. If you don't feel like you could land your canopy like the one in the video, you should either be focused on improving your canopy piloting skills as job one, or looking for a bigger or more doclie canopy (or both). I'm not suggesting that everyone should choose to land such a canopy if they're presented with it, much to the contrarty. If you prefer to land a more functional canopy, by all means cutaway. What I'm saying is that not everyone has the luxury of altitude like the jumper in the video, and if you should end up there, you should be ready for that with sufficient canopy piloting skills and a canopy to match.

Winner! Funneling money into a NASCAR team, a privately owned business venture, in exchange for a paint job and some media exposure is one thing. Maintaining the above mentioned units in the armed forces is another. They all feature trained soldiers who have served their country, and they all involve the height of skill and training in areas used by the military during wartime. Any of the soldiers or equipment used in those units can be called into active duty at the drop of a hat. Much different than cutting a check to some redneck Nascar team owner.

The reason is that you're wrong. By going on to defend your position on this, and some other things, you're proving that you're looking at things from the wrong end. You're on the bottom of the totem pole at this point, but you're making judgements and statements like guy several notches up from you. Here's something to think about, and it pretains to more than just this thread, it can be applied to your overall mdinset moving forward - How do you think this thread would have turned out if the title was something like 'Stuck brake cutaway', and your opening post was something like, 'Hey guys, what do you think of this cutaway? It looks like he might have made that knot himself, but in any case, couldn't he just land on rears?'. See? No accusations, no judgements, but an open mind and looking for opinions/viewpoints.

The only redeeming thing about this situation is that it happened in Lodi. At least that place is on the FAAs radar as being a 'problem', and future incidents that occur there (or in Bill's planes elsewhere) could be viewed as a result of a 'Lodi' problem, and not a 'skydiving' problem.

What else do you think he should have been thinking of? In my book, altitude is a big concern on any skydive, from the time you leave the plane until you're back on the ground. If I had a stuck toggle or knotted brake line, I would think that might be next in my line of thinking. The more you talk, the more it seems like you have a flawed thought process. Note the location of the knot in the brake line, there's a good lenght of brake line pulled through the guide ring, and the knot locks that input into the system. Landing on rear risers would involve some sort of compensation to get the canopy to fly straight, and would result in a braked approach to landing. Your two options would be to fly with left riser input (and right toggle input via the knot) down to an asymetical rear riser flare from a brakes approach, or to hold left toggle agaisnt the right turn, and flare with the left toggle and right riser from a braked approach. What is it about those two options that are so appealing to you that you're willing to call the cutaway 'dangerous' and 'stupid'. My opinion would be that attempting either of those landings without significant experience on both the canopy in question and the rear risers would be dangerous and stupid. The cutaway was the correct solution. It permitted a safe landing on a forgiving canopy. For a guy with such little time and experience in the sport, you sure seem to think you have a lot of answers about a lot things, but I would suggest that your 'expertise' is only in your head. Sure, you might know 10x what you used to know a year ago, so in your mind you feel like a genuis, but consider for a moment that your experience is a drop in the bucket compared to someone who has been in the sport for 5, 10, or 15 years more than you. I can assure you from experience that the learning does not end, it builds upon itself for many years to come.

Inspections have proven to be a 'weak point' in the Lodi/Bill Dause maintenance program.

So what you're suggesting is that we shouldn't judge you based on what we see of you on the internet? That the reality of your situation is different than it may appear online? Every considered taking your own advice? Regardless of what you thought of how the mal happened, what the jumper thought of it, or the timely-ness of his response, it's hard to fault the outcome, that being a safe landing. Did you think to give the guy credit for pulling high enough to have time under canopy before reaching his hard-deck? How about for being aware of his altitude at every stage of the game? What about realizing his limitations and knowing that he personally had a better chance at a safe landing under a reserve? Of coruse not. Beyond that, there's no 'calculated' decision when you claim to have 110 swoops and 150 total jumps. Even if you had 10 swoops and 150 total jummps, that's still not enough to have started swooping, whoever you are. Similarly, your WL isn't appropriate for someone at your level, regardless of how great you, or anyone else, seems to think you are. Keep in mind that non of your 'DZ pros' are the ones who have to hit the ground hard when you screw up. It's easy for them to tell you one thing or another because they have no dog in that fight. Their involvement ends when they're done flapping their gums, while you have to live with the possibly painful and lifelong consequnces. The way you were so quick to defend your position shows that you are aware that it's well outside the 'norm', and I would question the judgement of anyone who would willfully operate that way in an area proven to kill and injure more jumpers than any other facet of the sport. Additionally, look at the responses your post got, and maybe you can see that your outlook on the sport may be a little skewed in the wrong direction, and that an adjustment might be in order.

Those clouds were there 45 seconds beforehand as well, when you exited the plane. There was no 'bam' of any kind, either you didn't look or didn't consider them before you left the aircraft. A good rule of thumb at this stage is to not leave the plane unless you can see the ground and the DZ before you exit. Not being able to see either one may comprimise your safety and ability to navigate under canopy. It's a good thought, but you're not exactly 'staying in place'. Keep in mind that each 360 you make is half into the wind, and half with the wind. So making slow spirals is actually flying ovals in the sky with your position sliding downwind with every rotation. Think about it, the last solo out should have been well upwind of the DZ, yet you came out of the clouds right over top. The wind was blowing you back the whole time you were doing circles in the cloud. Making those turns is probably the best comprimise, but it's a comprimise. Like I said, you're not staying in one place, and not sure where you're going. At the same time, there's no guarantee that you won't have a collision in the clouds due to the lack of visibility. Like most things in skydiving, the best plan is prevention. Be aware of your surroundings and the weather conditons for the day. There were clouds all over the sky when you boarded the aircraft, and in that case you should have planned to check the spot and visibility before you exit. In an otter or similar, you can scoot up next to the door in front of the group or jumper leaving before you, and poke your head out just after the group before them leaves. You can check the situation while the group or jumper before you is climbing out or counting down the exit seperation time. Even if you have to pull your head back in for them to leave, you can get half of the checking done before hand, and the other half after they leave while you count down the exit seperation. It was your second solo, so you get some slack for that, but not much. Moving forward you have to realize that on weather days there will be a go/no-go decision to be made, and it's up to you. Be it the winds or the look of the clouds from the ground that keeps you from boarding the plane, or the clouds/visibility from the door that keeps you from exiting, it's your call from now on. Don't be a sheep, and just follow the crowd, make the best choice for yourself and don't second guess it.

If you're still a student, or just off student status, consult with your instructors as to what will work best for you. If you are still a student, make sure they will be willing to let you jump what you buy, or you may just end up looking at it until you get a license. If you're looking for an RW suit, you'll probably want some sort of booties, as they add quite a bit of drag. You're also going to want extra material and possibly a small wing or just extra fabric under the arms. In any case, an instructor might not want you to jump with those things as a student, so just ask before-hand. Beyond that, Flite Suit makes an awesome jumpsuit that will last forever, and Bev Suits has made some great slow falling suits for some bigger jumpers I know.

Everyone gets a logbook when they start jumping. Look at it this way, if you're a nightmare of a student, it's the only way for your instructors to warn your future instructors. (I guess it's also a good way to track your progress though the progression) Packing class should be fun for you, a rig is just a big fabric machine, and there's no 'mystery' as to how it works. Freefall and canopy control both have an element of 'feel' to them, where you either 'get it' or you don't, but packing is just simple mechanics, and should be right up your alley. (Again, don't come to your own conclusions and test your own theories without input from an experienced pakcer or rigger).

Lighten up a little, it's a not a 'sorry' situation. Very soon you'll be jumping on your own, and when that happens you'll have to ask around to get answers to your questions (and there will be questions). Right now, however, you have a team of instructors at Perris who are there for the purpose of teaching you, which includes answering your questions. The trick is that even if you know other people you can ask (like on DZ.com) your instructors are also following a progression and in order to make sure you have the right answers for that progression, you need to stick to asking them for the time being. Keep in mind that they work for you. You're in charge and can ask as many questions as you want, and take as much time as you need with anything. They have a standard way of doing things, and will follow that unless they have a reason to do otherwise. If you have quesitons or needs beyond what they're offering at the outset, just bring it up and they can adapt to make sure your needs are met. You can go so far as to jot questions down as you think of them away from the DZ, and then bring that with you for your next jump. I was just busting your balls about being an engineer. I am serious, however, about not tyring to 'solve' problems on your own. I know that engineers are typically turned to for problem solving, but in this case you need to drop that part of your personality and turn to an expert. Bad things can happen when you come to your own conclusions about things in skydiving, and then proceed un-checked to test them out. Yes, think, analyze and problem solve all you want on the ground, but never ever take anything into the air without having it verified by an instructor or senior jumper.

Are you sure about that? You don't even know what it's going be... That said, don't be such a dork (engineer), most of the time it doesn't 'fit' very well with skydiving. Often times it leads to over-analyzing and coming up with conclusions on your own which may or may not be correct. In terms of your jumps, who really cares where it came from? You jumped, did better than your last jump, and lived, case closed. If you really want to know how much 'help' you had from your instructors, try asking them, that's what they're there for. It's not unusual for a student to improve from jump to jump, that's called learning and what should be happening. Stick with your instructors for the time being, do what they tell you to do and ask them any questions you might have. In the end, it will help to keep you both on the same page (which is the instructors page, where you need to be). Otherwise, just have fun and try to keep the analyzing and over-thinking to a minimum.