Scrumpot

Suppose I should have even just guessed this with your screen name, huh? Are you saying that what you are working on, and your "goals" are HP CReW? And THANK YOU, seriously, for participating with me in this discussion. I *AM* (I think) learning (or at least considering) something "new" (to me) here. -Grant (Note: ...see Bill, I really can be sometimes, a good boy! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

The other thing to keep in mind that is also grossly OVERLOOKED when someone makes this FALSE statement is (and this is for you gentle tiger ...to consider, please): The RELATIVE EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENT needing to be factored in, when comparing to the RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD (to be statistically accurate) of mishap &/or incident/fatality. The sheer #'s of people who drive, and then TOTAL AMOUNT OF TIME (ie: "exposure") to that element as compared to skydiving just DO NOT CORRELATE! The analogy, as stated, that "skydiving is safer than driving" is a complete and utter fallacy! The comparison, without getting into much deeper further qualification (which if done would show it as such) is totally otherwise "apples to oranges". It is used by some to deflect, and then justify the danger (especially to WHUFFO's) sometimes, but please make no mistake about it (and if you do truly still somehow actually believe this ---pull your head out of the sand) SKYDIVING IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS ...STATISTICALLY OR OTHERWISE (if the "statistics" were considered correctly) THAN DRIVING! If you can not accept that straight-on and deal with it (without the need to put up these false deflections) then get out of the sport! You are deluding yourself. -Grant **edited to add: (OOPS! ...This is pretty much what you said ...and much more succinctly than I, I might add ...Me and my HASTE to jump right on as well, this clearly FALSE statement! ---Just drives me NUTS whenever I see/hear it though) ...I'm going to keep YOUR post "bookmarked" Kelp, methinks, for future reference. -WELL STATED! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Thank you Bill. I appreciate where you are coming from and honestly TRULY (I swear ) I had absolutley no intent of that. Winky too even entirely aside! I really, really, REALLY do want to hear from an obviously differing opinion and perspective. If I invited it, then only to "bash" it, what am I to LEARN from that? And seriously ...I really do want to learn here. It really was my reason for asking. I seriously figure there's got to be some reasoning behind this situation, and here is someone (apparently) willing to post on it. --- I really do APPRECIATE that! You haven't had to whip out that greenie DELETE stamp" too many times on me, have you? Again, thank you for the public reminder ...so here is my public response: I REALLY do want to hear (and will NOT "bash") Keith's perspective. As you say, if he does indeed CHOOSE to answer (which I legitimately hope ...and DESIRE that he does). THANKS!

Thank you Keith, for the response. I seriously was not sure. In this case then maybe you can help me out (and my thinking perhaps then) just a little bit. Would I be wrong in my assessment (as implied in my post) that you are therefore OVER THE MAX TSO limit for your RESERVE? If I am, please correct me here. If I am not, can you, from your perspective please also enlighten me then as to what further factors, or "off-setting" elements you (must) be considering to justify your choice(s) in that regard? Just for me, I can not see or fathom any reasoning or satisfactory justification for putting MYSELF (I am not "slamming" you) in that type of (excess risk) scenario. If you think my position/opinion on that is ridiculous, please illustrate for me then as to how? Aside from just being "personal choice", which I will unequivocally grant; again then, please help me out here. I really would like to hear further then, your honest perspective. Thank you! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Actually, what (and more precisely) WHO Dave appears to be referring, at least in part to here Sparky ...even if in just some measured, and veiled way is indeed a jumper named Bill. Not Bill Booth though, although maybe someone just about as old! Ant THAT, is about as far as I will go with that. Some interesting discussion, and some interesting results, regardless of the impetus of Dave's original post. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I've made a few jumps in the past with this type of set up, and it actually worked rather well. You would be surprised though at how "unnerving" it seems/feels to have someones actual voice in your ear during ff, and in the end analysis we did indeed decide it was more of a distraction than an actual help. It somehow interupted what otherwise would (and should) be "instinctual" ...if that makes any sense. Also, at the time, we decided to drop it because of concerns (whether founded or not) over the RF potentially interfering with anyone in the group's (we tried it in 4-way) AAD. At the time (about 4-5 yrs ago now there was some "debate" over that going on, and even though we were perfectly compfortable in jumping Cypres'es off ...some others in the A/C were not all that enamored with us, so again we just dropped it. It was "interesting" and fun for a bit, but when it comes right down to it, I don't know if it was really in any way "useful" or not, as much as itwas just a kind of curious novelty. Made MAYBE a dozen or so jumps total with an earbud and "jawbone mic" tranceiver set up underneath full-face helmets. As far as being "functional", yeah ...it worked just fine. Keeping a straight face in listening to some of the involutary "grunts" and assundry noises one makes in F/F (that otherwise I guess we just don't realize) and then concentrating on "controlling" those) was at times a challenge too! My opinion (from this VERY LIMITED experience)... More "distraction" over all than what it is worth. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Wow! ...Now if only you would both RECOGNIZE and HEAD your own words! Otherwise, this is one of the MOST HYPOCRITICAL statements I have seen on here in a long time; Considering (and correct me if I am wrong) you are the same guy who has posted in another thread that at 300 total (+/- a few jumps) you are also already jumping a Stiletto 135 at greater than a 1.5-1 wing loading. ---Are you that same guy? I don't care how sharp you THINK your learning curve or abilities are... please tell me how you also think THAT constitutes your friends supposedly also "watching out for you"?? I really, really hope that if you do not otherwise from just our "word of mouth" (postings -and I'm sorry if it seems I am "harassing" you) somehow WAKE UP and reconsider this more thoroughly, that you also end up as becoming one of the LUCKY ones. What I mean by that is to say that you don't have to find out you were wrong, by what you clearly don't KNOW (or appreciate) becoming a teacher to you by personal experience. ie: the hard way... JMO (observation), -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Actually, I was more concerned with/alarmed by the fact that it seems he is also over-loading, if not actually exceeding MFR MAX (and TSO?) weight limits on his reserve! Yeah, I've already recognized, and reconciled (somewhat) myself to the prevalence of rapid (sub-500 jumps) canopy high 1.xx to 2.xx loadings out there. I think you said it best Bill, with one of your replies elsewhere (again I am just terrible at searching and "clickies") when you remarked on the fatality and serious (even "career" ending) injury curve steepening in proprtion to this due to "1st time mistakes" as a result. Although pain is indeed an excellent teacher, and sometimes, some people's learning abilities are directly related to the intensity of pain experienced; unfortunately that curve has also IMHO recently gotten just too high too. What good does it do to say you can learn by your mistakes, but you put yourself in a position that where you stack the odds so high against you ever having that real ABILITY?? They (obviously) don't know it now... but at 500 jumps total (thereby also measurably less on that HP high WL one), REGARDLESS, I submit they just don't fully KNOW their canopy! Faster learning curve or not. They just CAN'T! The "instant gratification", "I want it/got to have it NOW" generation I guess. What really is all the GD fired up HURRY in that regards anyway? But then, apparently ALSO ignoring and EXCEEDING the MAX LIMIT on their very last chance, their reserve?? Sorry, even the greatest canopy pilot prodigy on the planet, I JUST DON'T GET THAT! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Either this is a troll, or this thread is getting to the point of being just downright RIDICULOUS now! ---YIKES!! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

That's cool, and I sincerely hope you are right. The one thing I have been slowly (but surely) coming to the realization of (if not downright coming around to) lately, is that the learning curve apparently CAN be much steeper than it was, even just @10yrs ago when I 1st got into this sport. The other thing I have come around to, via observance however, is that the cost and the price(s) being paid by those that end up mistaken about this, is also much higher than the cost and price paid (in level of injury ...or even fatality) than we did back then. Can you (in all honesty) do everything that is posted elsewhere (anyone feel like helping me out with a clicky here by chance) under Bill Von's downsizing guideline article? And can you do all of it during less than ideal conditions (ie: landing out ...or in some other potentially added stress scenario)? Because THAT is where the rubber really meets the road. Just something to consider. 1.5 loading on a sub 150 Stilletto at any jump # enters (I think) the "aggressive" range. And if you are not swooping (as you say), then what is the reasoning for you, behind this canopy (and WL) of choice? Again, not flaming. Legitimately, just wondering. Although you are correct that you indeed CAN kill yourself under almost any steerable canopy if making a mistake; the cost of a mistake, and circumstances you potentially put yourself under with this profile (WL & canopy type -even regardless of jump #'s), in just my observation and opinion are much more dire. If you are willing to accept those risks (as you self-apparently do), so long as you also fully understand them for yourself (which is what I question), I suppose then, "have at it". I do just hope that IF you are mistaken, the price you pay for learning that, is not higher than you thought in the best of conditions you were in reality, willing to pay. Like I've said in an earlier post: "been there, done that". ...Got the negative glossy's and hardware to show for it too. So I do not speak from a vacuum either in that regard. Just additional food for thought, that's all. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

That's actually quite a variance and a (high) range tollerance to consider as acceptable for 'gusts', especially if your profile pegs your experience level accurately. All joking aside, I would (personally) seriously reconsider that. Personally, I'd sure hate to be say @ 50ft AGL under almost ANY canopy when hit by a 10mph variable, let alone a moreover 28mph GUST. And knowing this as 'conditions' prior to actually jumping, are 'conditions' which sits this jumper down. There's always other days. If you're there to see 'em that is. 18mph but GUSTY aint one of 'em at all... to me. Been there, done that! JMO. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

If you flare fully, and EVENLY ...(remember, you still have a canopy flying over your head during all of this!), by drawing your arms -in- together, in front of you, hands coming together at your crotch... will lessen the chance of them getting injured too. This is the proper procedure for a "standard" PLF as well. By understanding this, and PRACTICING this will also help you resist the instinct to "reach" for the ground, which if done with either your feet -or- your hands is always a mistake. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Your "clicky" does not seem to work here. Can you correct? What is it you were apparently trying to link to? My deepest of sympathies and condolences as well. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Screw pursuing any civil injunction and damages award, at least for purposes and as it would relate to any (apparently) published state Annotated Code. Wouldn't this rather (by definition -State Annotated Code), be instead a matter (if found of substantial merit) for referral to the state's attorney generals &/or jurisdictional prosecutors (states attorneys) office for potential CRIMINAL prosecution? Seems to me THAT would be a reasonable (and certainly cost effective) place to start. Or has this perhaps already been tried and failed? What is it I am missing here? Just some additional thoughts/observations. Regards, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I "use" one as well. It has only ONE setting... Flatline (at 1,200). EVERYTHING above that is 100% absolutely up to (unilaterally and exclusivelyt) me. I've never heard it (in freefall) ...although one time I "expected" to. I hope I never do. Or better stated, IF I ever do, I hope I then do the right thing (which I have tried to train as pull silver -DIRECTLY). I've seen way too many people become "Pavlovian" otherwise about these DEVICES. For example: tracking off at 7k, only later to say "their ditter went off", so they also went! These devices are indeed a double-edged sword. I've been reading a lot lately it seems, many suggestions and recommendations for them, which is fine I guess. Except to the point you "set yourself up" with them! If it actually "scares" you to jump without one, please THINK about that. That is a sign. That fear can also be GOOD, so long as "faced". If you do not (face it -meaning make yourself jump completely WITHOUT it in intervals), then you are heading towards RELIANCE, which would be a critical MISTAKE. That "fear" or even hesitancy also by it's nature heightens awareness (again: only when FACED), which should never be ALLOWED to become lax in the 1st place! It's a trap that's way too easy unfortunately (human nature?) to fall into. Getting a bit off original thread topic, but worth (re)-mentioning IMHO. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Heck, I have just quietly WATCHED some of his classes, and what he was doing with his "students" and picked up myself each time, a little something extra it seems I could USE. At almost any level, definitely fully worthwhile. And ignore that "fossil" in the orange jumpsuit lurking around behind you during your ground instruction/debriefs Shit, sooner or later Scott's gonna catch up to me and hit me up BIG TIME. ...It's probably equitably due too! Only partially kidding. It's been about 2 years since I've seen Scott. Doesn't seem to travel as much. "Big enough" now that people come to him! Feel lucky you are in proximity to take advantage of that. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I do. You will NEVER catch me saying anything is 100% guaranteed reliable. That being said, I do think that "CBain's" post above pretty well encapsulises my thoughts as well on what I think it is now, you are getting at. As far as a student cutting away from what we may have later deemed for ourselves to be either "correctable" or "landable" ...yeah, that is an interesting perspective, but not one I think is worth overly fretting over. Or belongs really, in the STUDENT domain. For instance, a 330 Manta with a line-over flying stable (though not steerable) may be very "landable". But you will NEVER hear me giving a student any flak over cutting one away. We just don't teach them to KNOW that. Nor do I think at their juncture (1st jump course) SHOULD WE. At some point we do have to instill that the reserve can be (and should be) however, reasonably relied (or maybe better stated "called") upon. I would much rather see a student chop 8-10 line-twists that sure, maybe you or I feel we COULD HAVE gotten out of; than see them try to and FAIL. That's also why we teach altitude awareness and HARD DECK decision altitude. We do teach students the technique for kicking out of line twists. However, ONLY if: 1. They have altitude awareness, and... 2. They are above their hard-deck. Again, a "no" to either of those, and I want my students (if I had any ...disclaimer here: I AM NOT an instructor) fully confident, and NOT second guessing/being concerned over either recieving flak, or worry in any other way about cutting away. That would cause hesitation. And hesitation (as has been proven) in of itself can cause fatalities! That's also why, in my mind the very simple 3-rule BASICS as I outlined in my earlier post, in all cases works. Adding variables IMHO only also increases risks. Risks that w/be entirely unneccessary to be added in as "variables" for the student level. At hard deck, with line twists, obviously that student triggers (or should trigger) my #3 in the chain of "good main canopy" decision tree. ...Is it controllable (meaning steerable)? In that case, for them, a cut-away is the right decision to be made. In short, I do disagree with you that students aren't told that Reserves CAN fail. Or at least they SHOULD be. Who tells them that reserve parachuts are 100% reliable? ...Anybody??? The risks of skydiving are real. You can takes steps to MINIMIZE them, but they will never entirely go away. If they are not willing to accept those risks (as we ALL do), then they should NOT take up skydiving. Christina (CBain) seems to have followed what you wanted, and IMO has got it right (although I'm not quite so certain about that condom thing ...I don't rely upon THOSE either! ). Anyone else have anything further? Interesting topic for thought to bring up from time-to-time actually. Way too easy to get entrenched into "just the way things are", and miss considering where appropriate, potentially other options out there. Don't think we're there with this one yet. but.... THANKS! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Getting a hard-on for me now, eh smiley? I'm flattered. The point was my supreme frustration in apparently several low-timers on this board asking for input and advice. Then when they GET IT, and on top of that from someone as emminently qualified and EXPERIENCED as Skratch Garrison, they don't take it! Nothing specifically intended or singled out towards you. Your insights and opinions are welcome. Didn't mean to "pick on you" specifically. Sorry if it seemed that way. Maybe you can now do the same for/with me & we can move on. I still stand by my assertion that this string could have ended back with post #25 (Skratch's). Looks like it could have even YET AGAIN with his post #38 above, if US (me too ...compared to him) LOWBIES could just "get over ourselves". I'll do that now Smiley, if you will too. How's that? Happy Holidays, and BLUE SKIES, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

If you've "relied" on your cypres (or Vigil), then you are by default also relying upon your reserve! I like what MR2mk1g actually said with his post. Very insightful grasshopper! I don't quite understand what it is you are getting at or asking here. Surely you are not suggesting that we should instead just teach RELIANCE on the Cypres??? Please tell me that is not what you are saying. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I don't think that terminology is used, specifically at all. Maybe it is, and I'd be happy to hear from some either still on, or just off student status to correct me if my impression is wrong. It is my impression that students are taught: 1. To recognize a malfunction. We do this in the AFF ground course by putting them in the harness, then showing them various pictures of MALFUNCTIONS, and teaching how to appropriately react to each. ...We also show some simply hung sliders, closed end-cells, etc. too, just to get some variables in, and talk about appropriate reactions to each. I suppose it could be extrapolated that they would be under the impression to chop anything "unlandable", but I don't think we actually go into, and expect a student (in those terms) to determine what is "landable", vs. what is not. I think THAT would be too much to put on a 1st time jump student. Personally, I've alsways still stuck to just the very BASICS (until a bit later in the progression) of: -Is it there? -Is it square? -Controllability check ...is it controllable? And in that order. If the students answer to any of these after initiating their main pull/deployment, in this order is "no", then they immediately should perform EP's. I don't think the term or terminology (or further potential interpreted definition of) "landable" ever enters the consideration. Is this different elsewhere, or has this somehow changed? Maybe I'm just talking nuances here too. Just another perspective though. Happy Holidays everyone! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Woulda worked. Thanks for clearing that up! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

NEVER a good idea, and I would NOT EVER suggest this! When landing off, land CONSERVATIVELY, and land SAFELY. Seriously. ...I am not "flaming" you personally Jose, but I would not even joke about this (which is probably all you are doing) ...at least I hope this is not a serious suggestion! I have seen too many friends (more than one QUITE EXPERIENCED, and actually a competitive, HIGHLY COMPITENT "swooper" otherwise) Chow in trying just this during an off-DZ landing. The litany of very serious injuries, and even at least one FATALITY that I know of, has been resultant of exactly this type of "stunt" gone bad. An off DZ landing is not the time to do this, nearly ever, PERIOD. You just NEVER KNOW what your obstacles may be on the edge of that water hazard. Or "fun" looking drainage levy, or fire-break "swoop lane" etc., etc. off the DZ. Unless you are ABSOLUTELY SURE of your LZ (ie: ON THE DROPZONE or well-scouted PRE-PLANNED landing area), ALWAYS land as CONSERVATIVELY and safely as possible, wings level, and be prepared instead to PLF! Land safely FIRST, then if you do want to swoop, get back to the dropzone (in one piece) get packed up, get on the next load and go swoop! Because then you CAN, because you did not fuck yourself up trying to pull this skewed rationale and are now because of it sorry, busted up, or WORSE! Sorry to sound like such a "Nazi" on that. But like I say, I have seen too many friends actually think just like this ...and I don't think it should be even REMOTELY alluded to, and should be in fact DISCOURAGED. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Again, I am observing a situation here, and shaking my head in utter disbelief where SEVERAL VERY EXPERIENCED jumpers (2 with OVER 25yrs in this sport A PIECE ...not "combined", but EACH, and THOUSANDS of jumps & all the related jump EXPERIENCE that goes -unavoidably- along with that) have given their input, and stated, I thought, QUITE CLEARLY ...that PLF's if taken the time to be LEARNED (not "short-cutted") and done CORRECTLY, are THE way to go. Ram-air, high-speed, up-wind, down-wind, ...IN THEIR EXPERIENCE, what-have you. Yet we still see, 2 sub-100 jump wonders continuing to debate the nuances, and intricacies of something they clearly (in the actual setting ...not just "clinically") DON'T KNOW SQUAT ABOUT, PERPETUATING their self generated FALACIES (ooh ...lets forget about what Skratch Garrison has to say, or Michael Owens, or others with 1,000's upon 1,000's of jumps, and literally DECADES of EXPERIENCE... that's right, let's just IGNORE them, and continue on with our butt-slide babble ...because between us with this babble we'll figure this one out better than they ever could for sure! ). ....DOH! As far as I'm concerned, this thread ended, (or SHOULD HAVE) with post #25 right HERE! It just amazes me. We all (supposedly) WANT, and look to the input of these MASTERS. Yet when we actually get it, we eschew it???? This makes absolutely no sense to me. You will all wonder one day why people like this suddenly just decide to stop posting as a result all together. I certainly wouldn't blame them, although I for one, hope that day doesn't come very soon. That, would be a day we should then all feel sorry and ASHAMED for sure. JMO. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Actually, I thought I had posted for you, precisely the (well, maybe not "THE", but at least "an") answer to this. Several times, and in several ways too! With my post #10 HERE, and then again with my post #'s 61 & 64 on this very page, did I not? ...To which you have also asked me now, about my logic for NOT having an RSL personally. I'd be happy to also answer that for you too, if I had any confidence at all that you were actually listening! The reason I personally choose to not have an RSL at this point in my career is that I have seen several incidents and scenarios where an RSL MAY have made the situation worse. I feel that weighted against the benefits, my feelings as to my potential exposure to the situations that would call for the benefits that the RSL might provide being actually NEEDED, and the relative exposure to it's potential consequences being all considered, that I -personally- just don't want one. I do not want to "hijack" this thread and divert it strictly into an RSL debate. That has been done several times throughout these forums. Let's just say that I've made this as my own, informed, PERSONAL CHOICE current decision. No, I do not routinely fly camera. Nor do I fly a board. But those are not the only reasons, once you have become more experienced, to decide not to have your rig RSL equipped. That being said, I have been looking and reconsidering some of late too... based on early indications of the potential efficacy of the skyhook system. In that regard though, I consider myself maybe in "Ron's" camp. (LOOKOUT! ) If you don't know what I mean by that, let's just say I'll let others in ACTUAL SITUATIONS "try it out" maybe for a year or 2, and I'll observe before I formulate any final decision for myself there. Until then, I am fully comfortable in jumping (again just my PERSONAL choice) entirely without one. Your questions answered yet? I'd be happy to go to PM's too, as well with you if you feel still, somehow that they are not. ...And I thought I was dense? (that's just a long running joke, BTW) -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I too think that this is more of a "NURTURE" thing, than a "NATURE" one. I, for one am one to sometimes absorb actually too much blame. One time, during a regional big-ways try-out/recruitment event during a video debrief where a funnel had occured on my side of the formation, no matter how much they tried; rewinding, slow motion, forward, backward, etc. the organizers just could not tell definitively what had happened. I went ahead and piped up that I thought I could have done a better job & maybe I had contributed. I was definitely not alone, but I was the only one who piped up. I was also immediately the only one who was CUT! ...I've since learned not to necessarily be quite so "volunteering" with my acceptance or the self-assignment of blame. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone