Scrumpot

"Attacking" someone Chris? How was I attacking someone? Please explain that to me if you would. Certainly not like calling someone a FUCKWAD or anything. If you read the post WHICH I REPLIED TO IN THE INCIDENTS FORUM by-the-way (it must have OBVIOUSLY been moved from there by the greenies only subsequent to that), you will notice I wish the jumper involved both a speedy and a full recovery, which I STILL DO! ...How is that "attacking" ANYONE?? -Should I stoop instead and resort to calling you names? Instead Chris no. ...In fact rather, I have already sent a check to the fund (which also BTW I think the original poster meant to say is with BRANCH Banking & Trust Company Bank -BB&T, not "Brand" ...unless I am mistaken). How about you? -DOOFUS (oops, I guess in the end I just could not resist -My bad I guess ) There, does that now somehow make you feel better? In all seriousness though, no harm meant to either the original poster, or the obviously injured jumper involved, who in any case should be the focus of any of our (in relative comparison -petty) concerns. Get over yourself. Sorry that YOU apparently seemed to have taken this (again, posted in the incidents forum) the wrong way. If you still somehow want or feel the need to further debate this, my PM settings are "on" and my box is open. Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Isn't this the same incident as the "what happened in Monroe" one? Or is this some other?? If it is some other, then further actual incident details would also be appreciated. Sorry that your friend apparently chose to be jumping without any sort or form of insurance(s). Mistake #1 in the mistake "chain of events" sequence? Hopefully she recovers fully, and quickly. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Print your post, and bring it in & show it to Either JR or Kathy. Although you may be just a bit over sensitive about the radio portion, heck ...that is how you feel. If you share that with either JR or Kathy (the DZO's), they will either find ways to address it and work with it, and/or further re-assure you so it at least does not become a critical (to you) problem for you. If this is that much of an "issue" or a concern to YOU, remember if you keep that to yourelf, and you do not communicate it, you are not serving anybody any good that way! JR has been around for many years in this sport and has seen/handled many thousands of students, and IMHO still does so with compassion, understanding, skill and tact (some DZO's do tend to lose that over time), so I'm sure if you approach him, and COMMUNICATE your observations/concerns before your next jump, it will be handled to your satisfaction. ...Or it won't, and of course you would then have your decisions to make there if they aren't too. But I'm willing to bet they WILL! Give it a try & see how it works out. You seem to have a good, level head on your shoulders! ...Welcome to the sport, and never feel afraid or ashamed to COMMUNICATE! The issue about student rig sizing can be a challenge, and was also worthy of further discussion/consideration too. Thank you for sharing with us your points of view, and good luck with your student progression! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

A REALLY BIG hook knife, such as a Jack the knife might help in a situation like that. ...So as to sever the offending/entangled appendage or appendages (fingers), if necessary before cut-away. Good luck. ...Have fun! BTW, I always have my hands in position to "fly the canopy open" & steer via rear risers once the canopy has left the bag (ie: upon snivel) as well. By that point, it is usually easy enough to tell whether line-twists are either already present or developing. Sounds to me as if this jumper was just a tad bit TOO "QUICK" on the draw to have his hands "in there" before they needed to be. Once the canopy has begun to "stand you up" you should be able to tell whether or not, and WHERE to be able to place your hands (rear risers or even both ...to pull apart) without getting them otherwise entangled. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Interesting thing though, what freefall windspeeds can do, to still pull/flap this "loose" potentially. Rather than the "bulk" of the material flapping so that it was covering handles (presumably you mean by that cut-away & reserve)... **Edited to add: DOH! yup, actually that's EXACTLY what you wrote! ** wasn't this particular case instead probably where the bottom of the shirt worked its way UNDER the legstraps perhaps (precisely where you are now tucking it) ...or maybe "around"/under the hip rings, so as to in a peripheral vision sense maybe manifest itself as this jumper then "saw"? I'm thinking that probably what he saw was the bottom/tail portion of his shirt that got either under the legstraps or the hip rings (or webbing juncture if no rings), more so than excess "torso"-width material that would flap over/around the laterals. ...Possible? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Isn't precisely this method now incorporated in fact, as a part of the "new" ISP? I had thought it was. I would prefer to see this practiced, than taking your "final (crosswind) leg" longer/wider! ...Crossing the "center line" on crosswind IMHO is ALSO a bad habit to be getting into! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

See now, this concerns me. ...Did this send up any "alarm bells" for any one else? 1st off Sheena, I am not flaming you, so don't get me wrong here. This is precisely why we put this sort of stuff up here, and then talk about it, so we all can learn. However, unless you are ALWAYS last down, and you KNOW you are last down (not so simple of a concept as you might think if for instance you travel to a new DZ, and there are either bigger aircraft doing multiple passes, or even multiple aircraft with staggered jump runs), "Doing S-Turns 'hugging' the landing area" can be a BAD idea! This is precisely (or at least possibly one component of) why GP put this in here. Clearly, you are doing exactly what has been taught to you ...and you feel it is "right", and therefore of no concern. I'm with GP, I think the teaching of "setting up your entering the pattern at 1k" needs to be rethought. Great post! ...But man, did this thread get "hijacked"! Can we maybe please bring it back to what it was meant to illicit, which was (as seems to me) to be a discussion regarding the efficacy of teaching students fixed altitude references (etc.) for their landing patterns & their potential affects, problems &/or concerns? -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I understand your point. I just don't know if I agree with it, and I'd like to solicit perhaps even further opinion (and knowledge/clarification maybe too, of the "facts" from the actual incident). If it is as I percieve it, which I grant could be wrong (which is why I am asking), this situation could have been much worse (and for many more than just this one jumper), and I think it is probably worth even a little more exploration into the subject than "you either just take it and accept it that way, or you don't get onto big ways". Seems to me as if we could have something MORE to learn here, and perhaps take to heart to PREVENT future potential real problems like this! ...Wouldn't that be a good thing? From the jumpers original post: This indicates to me 2 things. 1. That the pilots were indeed aware that the oxygen was NON-FUNCTIONAL (not just "not the best for everybody") and... 2. That is was more than just this one jumper who may have not had "optimal" O2. I think that you & I are talking therefore, about entirely different scenario's of what should be "acceptance level" here. Further, if you grant that hypoxia can affect individuals in such a way that they don't even know it (are aware of it - that they are impaired) ...I repeat, then ...if #1 & #2 above are correct: who is responsible for taking PROPER precautions to prevent this possible scenario from happening in the 1st place? Maybe my questions or the way I am phrasing them are not making much sense, and perhaps someone else can chime in here, and/or help clarify for me? This one just seems as if it was entirely PREVENTABLE, could have been (quite easily) much WORSE, and... was not just this one individual jumpers "fault" (decision not to jump at all, when his decision-making capabilities its very self could have been impaired ). Is it really acceptable procedure to continue on with flying and pursuing a jump run that would exceed 15k for an extended time (as this one apparently did), or were there any other potential alternatives here could have been considered? Again, I don't know. I'm asking. If being exposed to these scenarios as potential eventualities is a part of the consideration in participating in big ways, and that it should just be otherwise considered "acceptable" or don't just participate in the 1st place (as you apparently assert) is "just the way it is", then fine. I guess we SHOULD all take that into advance consideration then. Let me know if indeed that is just "the way it is". Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

That's the funny thing about hypoxia... it very easily (and in fact most likely CAN) actually ROB you of that ability to tell! No way. Gotta disagree with this one. If the oxygen is not functional, then the jumprun should not exceed 15k period, let alone continue and even "go around" at 17k+. Now, this jumper does say that the pilot (and or other pilots in the formation) may not have been aware due to "breakdown in communication". But who was responsible for that? If the pilot was aware (of the O2 problems), wouldn't it indeed be HIS (or her ...don't mean to be non-"pc" ) responsibility to abide by the FAR's and NOT exceed 15k in his flight pattern? ---I dunno. I'm asking? That's at least the way I read into just THIS part of this. Help correct my thinking or understanding if it is in any way askew. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Kris is also very appropriately communicative upon pre-boarding with the rest of the load, and even if we have to have our little group "pushed back" to behind even just a 2-way or a solo pulling lower, I for one, have absolutely no problem with someone who jumps WITHIN their abilities, understands and respects them so as to do what is (as she says) COMFORTABLE, so as not to be "pressured" & is therefore "safer" for us all. Kris, I will jump RW with you any time! I'm sure she will "progress" to 4k as her break-off & 3k as her pull alt. soon enough. A "problem" or a "concern" though right now? I don't think so. Something to be said too for a conservative progression. Too many of us are in way too big of a hurry to do way too much, too soon & too fast. My dirt alert? ...Mine's broken right now (oh my, how do I even dare continue to jump? ). When I do use it though, I'm in (so far) your highest percentage respondent group. Most times I'm already waiving break-off before hearing it, but then again sometimes not. Lot's of times I just set it too for only a single "flat line" (which when I do, I set at 2k). I do think about & fear the potential "pavlovian mentality" forming though, and can 100% guarantee that I do NOT rely on it. Oh yeah, and too ...I'd like to say that I have never heard that 2k flatline warning either while in freefall. But alas I have. ...Once. When CONSCIOUSLY going low(er) (as assigned) on a big-way, and also so as to more safely (for the circumstance at hand) avoid another EVEN LOWER (to clear him) jumper who tracked away early ...but more "straight down" than he did away, so that even his vastly "longer track" (his words that he thought he did) ended him up instead almost directly UNDER me right at 2k. ...But I digress. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I just found my way over to this thread from a clicky link going on over in the new Community: USPA BOD Elections forums. My eyes are now blurring over, but I don't think that I saw this question actually answered. So here goes, and if it is a "repeat" of something pages deeper into this, that I have not yet come to, then my apologies. If this as a result then also "bumps" this thread.... well, is that a bad thing? The short answer to your question here Chris is in 2 simple words: HARD DECK. If your main canopy is not open and flyable/landable by your hard deck, you chop it. Period. Determining or milking "fixability" beyond (ie: lower) than that (whatever YOUR hard deck is) is a mistake. Fuck with it all you want, RIGHT UP TO (or down to more appropriately) your hard deck. Whether it turns out it was "fixable" by that point or not all suddenly becomes purely acedemic at that point, because if it is NOT (fixed), it is GONE! ---Or it should be. Does this answer your question? So now, instead of "hijacked" rather now: "bumped"! Doube-dutied for this "old" (but good, IMHO) thread. Blue Skies, -Grant Edited for a spelling/grammar correction only. Man, I do so many of those! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Why would a left riser be any more prone to break, and under what circumstances specifically, than the right? I do agree however, regardless, that this just looks like a horrible RSL set up, period! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

No, not necessarily. I have been on a jump where I was a part of the "second wave" to break off & track, to only find myself rapidly over-taking someone off the 1st-wave who: 1. Probably tracked "down" more than flat/horizontally than he thought he was. Which also 2. Made his track nowhere near as far (horizontally) as he had thought he went! Fast, flat tracking is a skill worth working on (and being aware of)! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Which was what, ...exactly? True, but... Where did it say anywhere that he pulled in place??? I must have missed that one somewhere. Wanna re-think your input there into this one, or should I spell it out a little more for you? P.S. ...Sunshine's got this about the closest from the perspective I am referring to here.

Also depends on what kind of winds it is going to need to penetrate. A downwind (or 180) jumprun is going to increase the likelihood that the latter exiters will need to be penetrating (and further/longer/more) as well. As stated by others, a downwind jumprun really materially affects mostly your SPOT considerations (are you going to continue exiting at > .50 OVER?). Exit separation has nothing to do with jump direction per-se, as the falling bodies are all still falling through the SAME relative airmass, and will be affected equally, relatively, once they have exited, regardless. ...And the "45' rule"? Puh-leeze, can we shelve this?! Cannuck ...you should have known better than to open THAT can of worms! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I don't really care either way about the cat, but SOMEBODY'S got to do something about that vinyl tile vs. vinyl tile transition situation going from one room to the next (in pic #1)! ---EEK! Frightening. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Been told now, that the Bi-Plane (a stearman) will actually be there BOTH days (Saturday & Sunday)!!! If you're anywhere at all around the area this weekend, then DELMARVA WILL BE "THE PLACE" TO BE!

UPDATE: As just put out from the manifest at Skydive Delmarva... From: "Skydive Delmarva Manifest" Subject: Boogie Weekend!!!! Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:12:05 +0000 Skydive Delmarva would like to welcome you to our June Boogie being held this weekend, June 19th & 20th! There will be a $10 registration fee which covers an all you can eat pig roast, kegs (yes kegs, not keg) of beer, assorted liquors, sodas, and a DJ. Load organizing by Mike Davidson, including free video. Some of the weekend activities include: jumping from a Bi-plane and demo Bird-Man suits will be available for anyone interested. Blue Skies, see you this weekend! ----------- Bolds as inflections added by me. Looks like the Bi-Plane has been confirmed! YEEHA! ...Y'all c'mon down now, y-hear? (I been working on that "southern thing" now for about 14 years. ...still haven't gotten it quite right) but you get the idea (hopefully). This is gonna be a rockin' good time, and if you've never been, well ...there's no better time than the present! C-U all there! BLUE SKIES, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Saturday June 19 & Sunday June 20. -Pig Roast -Bonfire -General Delmarva mayhem for all! Camping & RV Slots available. Rumors of a Bi-Plane coming in & available for jumps on Saturday?? Call Delmarva Manifest at: 888-875-3540 for details! C'mon out & visit one of the friendliest, no-stress, GREAT VIBES DZ's on the entire east coast. Jumpers of all disciplines and experience levels welcomed! http://www.skydivedelmarva.com Dave, Erica... Care to post up any further details? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

To me, that depends on who you are asking to give you that pin check ...or if you even know. Now adays, it seems there are just too many people who may not even have a clue as to what they are looking at, due to (in part) the diversity of gear currently out there. In general, if you checked your pin (and bridal routing/flaps closure & security) prior to boarding, and you did not do a whole lot of shifting and bumping around during the climb up, it should not have changed. Is it "over the top" though? ...No, and many people actually do practice this/subscribe to it. As long as I know who it is who is lifting my flaps & feeling around back there knows what he/she is looking at & doing, I am okay with it, AND I HAVE ASKED FOR IT. And then, I'm only going to ask if after boarding, something has happened to give me concern (excess shifting, etc). Your closing loop should not be so loose, and your pin protection so ineffective as to just normally allow your pin attitude to change subsequent to anything short of you tossing your P/C into the windstream. If it is, and it gives you that much concern, then you need to rethink your gear situation 1st IMHO. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I can see your point, and where your "concern" may be coming from, ...from your point of view. I guess it depends precisely on what you also mean by "a LOT"? And as well, whether it actually is indeed being done by the jumper(s) doing it, merely in response to the slack they see in their chest straps, because of the way they are seated. If that is the case, then yes, maybe they are "re-tightening" their chest straps unneccessarilly. But will this cause them any problem for you to be excessively concerned over? Probably not. Are these jumpers complete, just off AFF neophytes, or are they jumpers that presumably know their equipment? I have a routine personally, as an example. Before boarding the plane, generally I tighten all straps to "jumpable" taughtness. Not neccessarily the full "optimal" tightness that it most likely will be before I exit, but certainly tight enough that should I ever need to emergency exit (which I have), it would be of absolutely no concern. Now, if as I suspect at your DZ, your aircraft seating is bare floor rather than bench, the "rig in the crotch of your buddy" directly behind you does lift the rig so that your cheststrap can "appear" looser than it actually is. Tightening up that extra slack probably is not necessary, but if one does it, is it dangerous? I don't think so. Usually the habit of doing this would change pretty quickly if the jumpers doing this found that the rig was "too tight" or uncomfortable out the door. Here is also what I usually do. Upon pre-boarding I tighten up my leg straps to full jump/exit tightness (except as Bill Von points out for higher-altitude or big-way jumps where ride to alt. is extended). My chest strap is properly routed and threaded. It is again at a tightness that probably will not be what I will final adjust it to on jump run prior to exit (withour having to do a lot of jumping up & down and scuffling around, Quade ), but with my legs straps having already been fully tightened (and only needing to be quickly rechecked as a part of my final pre-exit routine), it usually does not need to be "retightened" all that much. ...Would that also look to you like I was over-tightening my chest strap, because while I was at your DZ, which causes me to be sitting on the floor resulting in my strap protruding from my body? I can see how you might be wondering that. Generally though, I will tighten my chest strap to the SAME level/spot that I KNOW, regardless of how it may have appeared to the 3rd party observer. So in my case, no ...your observations (and therefore "concerns") are unfounded. More important however, if you are looking at fellow jumpers chest straps (not a bad idea, as we have read in some other threads just recently) is to be sure it is properly routed, and THROUGH (not just over or around) the tensioner/buckle. In reality, the chest strap only needs to be just tight enough so as to not allow your rig to be pulled over (and off) your shoulders in freefall, or during opening shock. "Super-tight", loose, moderately loose or medium-loose is otherwise just a personal preference. Hope this little epistle has helped you out! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

What is your altitude here? How far was the wife having to "track" here to get to him? Looks to me as if she ALSO got pretty much directly over him, at a fairly low altitude, at least relative to what sub-100 jump newbies tend to pull at (depending on their PLANNED deployment altitudes ...they did have a plan/known agreement there didn't they?). Looks to me as if there is enough blame to go around between them on this jump, and THANKFULLY something to be LEARNED (ie: not a fatality here)! So, what were each of their attitudes, subsequent to this jump? I'd be interested in hearing as well from their perspective. Has she cleaned all the crap out of her panties from this one yet, and does each realize what this COULD HAVE (all too easily) BEEN? YIKES! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

A relevant reference to regulation, common sense, and actual practice (ie: mishap regardless of regulation) follows: From AvWeb, Aviators and aviation enthusiasts premier on-line e-publication & resource: Tandem Hang-Glider Pilot Pleads Guilty To Manslaughter 6/14/2004 Eleni Zeri, a 23-year-old tourist from Greece, died in March 2003 during a tandem hang-glider ride in the mountains of New Zealand after the pilot took off without properly securing her to the glider. Pilot Steve Parson, 53, of Canada, admitted that he had made a mistake, and last Friday apologized in court to the victim's mother. "Eleni was very brave. I'm so very, very sorry," Parson said. He was sentenced to serve 350 hours' community service and pay NZ$10,000 in reparation. After launch, when Parson realized Zeri was not secured, he wrapped his legs around her to try to keep her with him. She told him she couldn't hold on, and fell 500 feet to her death. New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said it will start next month to review and overhaul the regulations that affect commercial adventure-aviation operators. However, a CAA spokesman told the New Zealand Herald the review was not a response to Parson's case. "What happened in his case was in no way related to the regulations," said Bill Sommer. "The company he worked for had safety procedures in place that were in line with regulations, but he failed to follow them." However, perhaps current regulations need to be streamlined to make compliance easier for operators and the CAA, he said. ------------- Notice the references to REGULATION within. So anybody, ...anybody want to tell me how REGULATION in of itself would have had ANY impact or affected any difference at all as to this incident? Sheesh. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

A relevant reference to regulation, common sense, and actual practice (ie: mishap regardless of regulation) follows: From AvWeb, Aviators and aviation enthusiasts premier on-line e-publication & resource: Tandem Hang-Glider Pilot Pleads Guilty To Manslaughter 6/14/2004 Eleni Zeri, a 23-year-old tourist from Greece, died in March 2003 during a tandem hang-glider ride in the mountains of New Zealand after the pilot took off without properly securing her to the glider. Pilot Steve Parson, 53, of Canada, admitted that he had made a mistake, and last Friday apologized in court to the victim's mother. "Eleni was very brave. I'm so very, very sorry," Parson said. He was sentenced to serve 350 hours' community service and pay NZ$10,000 in reparation. After launch, when Parson realized Zeri was not secured, he wrapped his legs around her to try to keep her with him. She told him she couldn't hold on, and fell 500 feet to her death. New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said it will start next month to review and overhaul the regulations that affect commercial adventure-aviation operators. However, a CAA spokesman told the New Zealand Herald the review was not a response to Parson's case. "What happened in his case was in no way related to the regulations," said Bill Sommer. "The company he worked for had safety procedures in place that were in line with regulations, but he failed to follow them." However, perhaps current regulations need to be streamlined to make compliance easier for operators and the CAA, he said. ------------- Notice the references to REGULATION within. So anybody, ...anybody want to tell me how REGULATION in of itself would have had ANY impact or affected any difference at all as to this incident? Sheesh. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

You are not alone there! ...Why oh why is this persisting? Absolutely agreed. (again, why oh WHY is this "insistance" somehow that tunnel time is either skydiving, or "freefall"?? It is NEITHER people!!! ...I like the comment about creeper time! The wind tunnel is a TRAINING AID, just like a creeper, or heck a hanging harness or VR simulator can be. ...Anyone also want to log those?? C'mon folks, put this one to bed. As has already been said (several times, and by several people) log whatever you want in your own personal log book, but puh-leeze DON'T try to pass off ANY TRAINING AID time as actual skydiving/freefall time! ...'K? 'nuff said? Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone