Scrumpot

Yes Dave, you are correct. That is the incident. I have video of my friend from that jump from just a few days prior upon which the videographer at the time (and BEFORE the fateful jump) put upon it the "don't fear the reaper" soundtrack. It was a sunset load with he & I closing last on an 12-way together ...which was quite a feat considering Aron was primarily a (and truly "avowed" for the day) head-down flier. I still cry to this day when I happen to see that video. Glad that that is understood, and I just felt that this needed to be also said. Again... if for nothing else, than for the potential "casual reader" who feels he/she can be "self-taught". I certainly did not mean to dampen the initial posters apparent euphoria or exhuberance. My apologies Evelyn if I have in any way done that. Good on you for taking the course, and having the initiative and consideration to always stive to LEARN!

I am certainly not going to go against anything that Scott either told you directly or instructed you for the canopy control course of your level, and ABSOLUTELY go back to him and ask him (or if he is not available, another senior canopy pilot or coach that you trust) about what I am about to say, but in ALL instances, THAT statement is just not true! And in my opinion this needs to be taken WITHIN the context only (and at the level) that he was teaching you. I don't know your wing loading, canopy design, etc., etc., but others just reading this, and thinking this for themselves who could be under higher loaded elipticals for instance, need to be aware that there ARE indeed possible greater risks, and/or consequences if this is practiced inappropriately (or without either understanding and instruction). I have personally witnessed a FATALITY caused by a jumper practicing (for "fun" while celebrating his descent from his 500th jump) the collapsing and re-inflating of his main canopy, when one of those times he either let his toggles up too abruptly, unevenly, or what-have-you, and the collapse & resultant re-inflation became much more VIOLENT than he had anticipated. Lines became entangled with a component of either his rig, a loose shoe lace/his foot or both, and he was unable to cut it away/free himself before spiraling in under that configuration until (again FATAL) impact. Yes, the lesson learned, that you have apparently learned under CONTROLLED (relatively) circumstances is a good one. But the "casual reader" to this also needs 1st too, to be well advised. On a lot of today's low-time yet (self perceived) "rapid advancement" jumpers choice of more "radical" and lesser docile canopies becoming more & more prevalent out there, I just don't want anybody taking this post, and that statement in particular as blanket fact. I am here as 1st hand witness to you that in ALL INSTANCES it is not. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I never even saw your guys post(s) until I posted mine. It's usually a "BAD" habit of mine, when I see only later I'm asking the same questions, or pissing somebody off who has already "dealt" with what I thought I was just bringing up. That said, I still haven't seen Gary's FINAL word on this yet either. Although I too feel confident, I'm not popping any self-congratulatory corks until then. (I was gonna say until the "large person" sings, but hey... I decided not to say that! ) coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Why do you say/think that? The forces to pull the strap from the tensioner are exactly the same. In essence, we are all only looking at the configuration as if from the BACK (or "inside") of the strap routing. Otherwise, at least it looks to me as if it is INDENTICAL (to a "CORRECT" routing) ...except for only a "mirror image" as such, of sorts. Again, my opinion ...so long as the strap routing is FIRST over the buckle-frame then under and around the tensioner and back -it makes absolutely no difference. ...And Derek, I came to that hypothesis at my desk AT WORK. ...I have't gone home & tried it as a practical test or anything yet. It's just the way I saw it, in the nice comfy cushy comfort of my seat here in front of my computer too. I'm not saying that if I actually saw this on a load on jumprun though on a buddy that I STILL might not "double-take" it/like it better if it were "fixed" coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Careful JP. I'd really hesitate in quantifying that in a forum about crosswind LANDINGS. Performing this too close to the ground would be BAD JU-JU indeed, as think of your body position relative to the canopy, and then the ground as you approach the "apex" of that pendulum. ...See where I am going? -OUCH! I don't think these lowbies need to think this is a viable alternative for them in this thread or context being considered. Further, when doing this manuever it also REQUIRES that you have significant further downwind "fly-out" room (and need to KNOW ALL components of what we are taling about here ...maybe even *I* do not know fully what I am talking about here ) to FINISH your resultant input flight-path. Using this as a "touch-down" technique regardless, IMHO opinion would be a mistake. -No? -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Maybe so, maybe no. But then again he could find that depends could come in quite handy for yet ANOTHER, even if unintended use! Oops, sorry... that's RUPTURE, isn't it, not RAPTURE. My bad. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

And POWER. Don't forget that other all-so DIFFERENTIATING (and oft forgotten about) component here when considering drawing these sorts of analogies! ...But of course Dave, I know that YOU knew that. After all what would a Rotor-Wing Aircraft be (more than a ROCK) without POWER! ...And don't go giving me any of that typical chopper-pilot BS about how you can auto-rotate this, and autorotate that out of almost ANY situation either, okay? Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Not the best of analogies though. When you say "turn", a fixed wing pilot (depending upon when they were trained and their particular proclivity) will generally be using even as much as 100% Aileron (bank) turn. A cross-wind landing involves perhaps heavy rudder, to counter the cross-wind ...but you will note that is a piece of equipment as well that a canopy just does not have! Therefore thinking of landing as such "in a turn" in my mind is (potentially) a bad picture. An "offset balance" on toggles, or toggle pressure as alluded to in another post above (quipping about those that grouse about ...did you see that gust -when it is THEY that do not have this capability), is probably a better direct description. Although I fully understood, I can see this one getting a bit misinterpreted by some. Bottom line is that you need to fly your canopy all the way too (and then even sometimes while ON) the ground. Not the other way around. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

So long as the strap goes (in either direction) 1st over the buckle frame, then under & AROUND the tensioner, I don't see any problem with it. It's just "inverse" (facing in) rather than facing out (as if a "mirror image" is all, correct? I would think that this configuration, although at 1st glance "unconventional' would be "safe to jump". I'll be interested to see your (definitive) answer now Gary though. THANKS! ...A good one (I think ...unless of course I am now "busted" ) -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

(emphasis added by me) Why not? I contend that they ARE one & the same! In actuality the Perris incident highlights (to me) that this jumper in fact did not "have" a Cypres in reality at all (due to her activation error with it), although it is clear that she certainly did not think/know/realize that. In fact, I would go so far as to personally have in this incident categorized her as a "non-Cypres jumper", and in total if it turns out to ever be known that her activation "routine" was just that ...and a ROUTINE practice. Because, know it or not ...she just was not EVER (effectively) jumping "with" a Cypres (really) at all! This is precisely my point. Make your own choices about your gear. But make those choices INFORMED and EDUCATED. YOU have no excuse for jumping your gear blindly, or on "blind faith" without that, and it just ASTOUNDS ME as to how many of today's jumpers apparently though, none-the-less, do! On this we agree. But again, it is still an individual jumpers OWN RESPONSIBILITY to make those choices "informed" and based upon good education. One should still NEVER be a substitute for the other. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Not agreed. Not agreed AT ALL! In fact that statement indicates to me, quite the OPPOSITE! ...and that is, that an AAD fire instead indicates, quite "indisputably" that the jumper has indeed himself/herself rather: FAILED TO ACCOMPLISH ITEM ONE! How can you possibly continue to argue otherwise? You have contradicted yourself here now with your historical arguments here Dorb. Perhaps I misinterperet your meaning or intent? The way I read the post that you were replying to is: Sparky's "item one" was: IT IS THE JUMPERS (not a "device") RESPONSIBILITY to deploy his or her own parachute, then land it safely. A Cypres activation instead indicates, quite primarilly a Jumpers own FAILURE to accomplish this. You want to abdicate that responsibility, or delegate that to a device, and consider that "acceptable" that's your call. But it's certainly not mine. I'd damn sure better be INCAPACITATED in some fashion if my Cypres ever fired, or I'm personally giving great pause to my further continuation, and personal accurate risk assessment capabilities beyond that point. I TAKE FULL ACCOUNTABILITY AT ALL TIMES, FOR MYSELF. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Okay, and this thread is what???? Did you happen to see the particular post that was linked to BEFORE it was apparently OBLITERATED? Not the thread mind you, because Phree, THAT is indeed STILL there! The only thing deleted from there as far as I can tell, was THIS post. For whatever that means, or that is worth. Personally, I'm not "involved" with any of this, so I have absolutely no stake in ANY "dz politics". What I was linking to, and referring to was a single post, put up by somebody who had stated very directly, that Cary Quattrone (sp?) has personally, and very directly made threats of physical violence to that PERSON (not another DZO, that I know of). My post linking to that (which link of course is useless now because THAT post has been for whatever reason DELETED), was put up for the sole purpose of asking I suppose whether anyone, again IF that post were indeed FACTUAL, felt that was in ANY way REASONABLE, or tolerable? Perhaps the reason that post has been taken down is that it was instead just simply NOT factual?? The rest of the thread though itself other than that, as far as I can tell, still remains in tact. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Not just "deleted", but out-n-out OBLITERATED apparently, as if it had never even existed! Hmmm.... If I had only just "copied-n-pasted", rather than linked instead? Any "greenie" perhaps care to explain? IIRC, there was no either personal attacks, nor child porn (the 2 "obliteration rules" that I know of) within the post I had linked. So somebody yes, please do tell... what gives??? My apologies now, that my post above here as a result, now has a "dead link" within it. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

No, I don't necessarily think that these possibilities are of a significantly much lesser concern, nor are they mutually exclusive to each other either. I am not advocating that you need to jump regularly without any form of altimiter at all. Only that you SHOULD be able to "train your eyes" so that you are able to make them one of your (if not maybe even primary/most trusted) altitude awareness resources. That way, you are not 100% relying upon, and DEPENDENT upon a mechanical (or electical) device which is prone to failure. You can make several jumps to do this quite safely WITH your wrist-mount altimiter. Start by training yourself to judge the alt at certain important points in your freefall FIRST, then VERIFY it against your altimeter until you feel you have gotten that "dialed-in" & ingrained. You can cross-verify this all the time then too, on nearly every jump until you feel comfortable and confident that you are learning your "sight picture". Then, that one time when you find yourself climbing to alt, and have either forgotten your altimeter, or check it only to find it is hopelessly broken, and no-one else on the load has an extra they can lend you, ...you can actually go forward with the jump without either freaking out, or at least too much undue difficulty! If you do plan on making a jump totally without any either visual or audible artificial altimeter to "test" yourself, it probably also is a good idea that you do that in a truly "planned" sense. Meaining that you also certainly do not in combination with say your 1st head-down jump, or at your DZ's annual Casa-Boogie with multiple turbines flying multiple turn-around loads on you too. Being a last-out solo, or 2-way "coached" dive to actually do this, surely could not be all that tough at any given time to arrange. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Okay Sky, I checked it out, but can't seem to find ANYTHING even remotely resembling this description. Clicking on the "More Details" (and screenshots) link also only brings me to a screen which says: Yet, still no link to ANY such real either actual product description(s), screenshots OR "product" itself. ...??? Is it me? After all, my sig line for the longest time in here was "maybe I'm dense" Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Quite a lot, and it seems to be the "norm", at least as I've observed around most USPA dropzones I've visited. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Well, although on one level (like explaining to students) I can understand the reasoning behind this being stated; still, once you progress, having a bit more "broader" of an understanding, and consideration of this little piece of equipment, in my mind, is still rather important. For instance, I most certainly WILL jump (or at least potentially react to a situation) "different" WITH my Cypres versus without. At 1,500ft in freefall (granted, not an "ideal" and "every day" situation to be in, but that's most specifically also when you DON'T just want to be trying to figure out as well for the 1st time what your Cypres parameters may be) WITHOUT a Cypres I will have absolutely no reservation in going to my main. However, WITH a Cypres, that reaction risks a 2-out situation. SO in fact, it could be quite reasonable to "jump differently" with vs. without your Cypres. My point however, is that you should be at least CAPABLE of doing BOTH. If you feel the risk of the jump you are about to get on would be too high without your Cypres, and/or the Cypres is the decision factor for you making a particular jump you may not otherwise, ...perhaps you should rethink participating in that jump (or jumping in general if you are THAT dependent upon your Cypres) At all. Not at all. You CHOOSE to jump with a Cypres. You do seem to be THINKING about it, and its purpose and its operation though. And that is good, and that is all I ask. Again, although I most certainly understand the "turn it on and forget about it" statement REASONING (and its "targetted audience"); The Perris incident in particular, in my mind also highlights the potential danger in this mentality as well. Once a skydiver is turned over to his/her own devices, it is incumbent upon them to KNOW their own equipment, equipment choices, or seek out that knowledge and THINK about it/consider what it means and how it may apply to their INDIVIDUAL jumping situation. I am just amazed today at how many jumpers I encounter who have literally NO CLUE of how many components of their gear actually function (the Cypres included), how to either maintain or adjust them, and what that could mean in certain situations based on their CHOICES. And that just astounds me! That may be fine for video games or tiddly-winks, but that is not what we are all participating in here!! This where the extent of the turn it on, "set it and forget it" mentality I think can (and was shown in this very incident) to be a mistake. Although I am solidly in the camp that the Cypres itself played "NO ROLE" in this incident, and that the PRIMARY CAUSE was jumper failure to deploy her own landable parachute before impact; it is still inescapable to consider its ABSENCE as CAUSED by this jumpers failure to understand her own gear, as also a "contributory" mistake. It would be a shame if nobody as a result indeed took some pause in that (myself included), and redoubled their commitment to LEARN THEIR OWN GEAR, and yes, learn from THIS mistake. Sorry if all the above is a bit long-winded and rambling. But hopefully at least makes SOME sense. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

As just seen in the Swooping and Canopy Control Forum: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1567212;#1567212 Anyone else have the same reaction/observation to this, as to and related to this subject? If this is absolutely so, even over and above the DOCUMENTED unethical (and arguably illegal) just business practices of this "organization"; even outside of all that, and again ...if this post is absolutely so, how much of this sort of thing are many of us going to just sit idly by and tollerate, as a COMMUNITY? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Boy, did this post certainly get "LOST" once Bill Von moved it out of the incident thread that it was originally posted in! Did the original poster, to whom I was only merely REPLYING TO even ever see this? I wonder. Hmmmm.... I HATE RAINY SATURDAYS STUCK AT HOME! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I think all the good people at Skydive New England; Lebanon, ME ...Yup in MAINE, who make several THOUSANDS of jumps there every season (and even a few in the "off season" ) might have something to say about that. But then again, maybe they're all just a bunch of scofflaw's too! Who knows? SkySlut? ... coitus non circum - Moab Stone

How can anyone send somebody somewhere "fictional" Dave? Seriously, just wondering. They've got to send people SOMEWHERE! So that being said, do you know, when someone buys a jump certificate from Skyride in CT for "Adventure Skydiving Connecticut", where do they get sent? If that ACTUAL dropzone/location accepts certificates as Adventure Skydiving CT, but is not in CT themselves at all (which you seem to be intimating), do you think that they also should share in the culpability here? Perhaps this has already been posted up somewhere and if my question is redundant, I do apologize. This thread is getting very long and involved indeed. Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Hmmmm.... Interesting, how supposedly the EXACT, IDENTICAL "STAFF" can co-exist at BOTH "Los Angeles Skydiving Centers" AND Skydive Tennessee, all at the SAME time! Must be one of those multi-dimensional time/space warp controllers again. Man, what WON'T they come up with next?? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

To me, that's not a fair analogy to an altimiter (the subject you are replying/referring to). You are not relying on your seatbelt to give you any feedback or "information" upon which to rely for any decision-making purposes. To continue upon that (flawed) logic path: Many cars are coming out now adays with distance (separation) sensors even in the FRONT bumpers, so that if you have the cruise control on & are approaching a slower vehicle in front of you, and you take NO ACTION on your own, it will apply the brakes &/or slow your vehicle (and "space it") FOR YOU. Does this mean then, that if you had one of these cars you should absolutely rely on that? If/when that system failed you should immediately pull over and stop driving?? Maybe everyone SHOULD have one of these cars, because it's a "safety device" that's available ...and "everybody should use every possible safety device ALWAYS available to them", -right?? Would you then drive your car with your eyes closed? I suppose you actually COULD for a period of time (longer than you could WITHOUT this) ...but would you want to RELY on that?? Personally, I would certainly want to be fully CAPABLE to not have to rely upon any such back-up device. So again, another long-winded answer to basically that particular question which you were referring with your analogy: Should you be capable of making a jump without any altimeter, either visual OR audible? I still think that answer is YES! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Before even visual altimiters became reasonable/affordable, people used to jump with stop watches all the time. However, the PRIMARY altitude awareness "device", and still the only one to be ever absolutely relied upon IMHO should be your own 2 eyes. ALL other man-made devices, no matter how fancy and technologically advanced (new-fangled) are none-the-less, subject to failure. To rely on any of these "back-up" devices to an absolute degree of dependence is always a mistake. That's a long answer in my opinion to this question, which translates I guess into the much shorter direct response of (again in my opinion) YES... I do think that any jumper should be willing to, or at least be CAPABLE of making a jump at any time, entirely without any kind of altimiter at all. Either visual (mechanical/electronic) OR audible. Otherwise what would they/you do if (or more likely WHEN -inevitably if you participate long enough) that device does fail on you? JMO, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

From a Billvon post of over 3 years ago. Definitely worth revisiting! Thank you for reminding me of this, and for asking the question! One of the Ten things that may keep you alive: 9. Buy your beer. It sounds like a selfish tradition, designed to punish new jumpers. It's a whole lot more than that, though. The key is that, if you buy the beer and give it to people, they will ask you what it's for, and you will end up talking to people (up to 23) about what just happened. Since this usually happens at some significant time (say, right after your first cutaway) this is a really important time to talk about what just happened without being embarrassed about it. (Well, maybe you will be anyway, but tough.) On the flip side - if someone buys beer for the DZ, and you're an experienced jumper, don't just grab a bottle and run. Find out who bought it and why they bought it. That beer isn't quite free - the price is that you have to pass on the knowledge that _you_ first learned when it seemed like you were buying a case every other weekend. Click HERE for the entire post/thread re-read. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone