Scrumpot

I'm sure that little blurb came out of him at some point reading the "survival" handbook. Some whuffo's actually believe that shit! Remember when rec.dot had the breathing through your skin thing "officially" (yet tongue-in-cheek) in it's FAQ? I don't know how many times I either read somewhere, or heard as a result, someone unfortunately quoting, supposedly (to their minds) "CREDIBLY" from that ...thas yes, this is so, and is "FACT". ---DOH! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Another good practice whenever there are ANY clouds in the sky at all, is during climb to make mental note of where the base of them are. Even if they are "scattered" and obviously you plan to avoid them, if you have at least made mental (or heck even verbal ...I've often noted even for others that the clouds seem to base-out at xx k), so then if you do enter one during your jump, you can have a reasonable expectation of when you are going to come out and can "plan" accordingly. General rule of thumb is to always have a plan, ...Plan the dive, then dive the plan. As Quade points out, there can be at times too many variables for just one "standard" answer though. Optimum is always for everyone to KNOW (in advance) what the others may be doing. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

That's when you reply that your experience there indicates the winds will die down at this time, and you tihnk that needs to be taken into consideration. If he is still not "getting it", try once more based upon (again) your experience and KNOWLEDGE there & ask if he thinks rationally (and can respond as such) that they (your observations & experience) are unfounded (and why), or if rather he has some sort of other considerations going on. If he still can't clearly answer, and you still feel as strongly as you apparently did, STAND DOWN. Maybe others will also rethink due to your ACTIONS. Just going along without reasonable consideration is being a lemming. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Okay then, so here's the $50million question, that pertains specifically to this incident: Let's say this jumper, in this exact same scenario, who buries her toggle just as she says she did on this ~1.3; buries that exact same toggle in the exact same fashion instead on a lightning (same canopy ...except) at 1.0 - 1. Same end results, or not? ...and why? Granted this calls for some supposition, but maybe it can be considered "educated" supposition at least. Let's leave the component of the higher wingloaded canopy contributing to possibly painting this jumper in the corner a lot easier (although I personally believe this a valid consideration too) out of this for now. In my own personal situation several years ago, and as I've recounted, I was under my 1.0-1 and was still seriously injured (so again, ABSOLUTELY AGREED that you can get injured, or even killed under almost ANY canopy); but I also truly beleive that had I been under my +1.2, matters most certainly would have been, likely much worse. This jumper on the other hand has replied that after doing THIS with her 1.3; that being under instead a 1.0 would have made absolutely no difference. Please feel free to clarify any of my thinking here if it is in any way out of place. Does either one or the other of us perhaps need to ammend our thinking or reconsider at all in this regard? I appreciate your considered input. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Check out this thread HERE Then, if I can possibly further clarify/help, feel free to PM me. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I've been on several door jams when taking off chunks (primarilly out of Otters) where one or more of the inside chunk members have either grazed the door frame on exit, or worse. It happens. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

You haven't pissed me off Jan. Or perhaps you missed it (I thought I said it), but no, no, no, no... rather I am having fun with this. Where I now have concern though, is where it is now also becoming clear to me that instead, you are dead serious about it in contrast. And most everyone recognizes you Jan, as someone with significant experience (and "stature"). The statement with expanded inflection including the description of your position on this as being dumfounded certainly carries with it, coming from you, certain contemptuous implications and innuendo ...even of itself. ie: condescending. Are you really so high up on that pedestal that you can't see that? Absolutely Agreed. Then why didn't you just ask more simply why these newer jumpers think, or have picked up their impressions to think like this? Seems like a reasonable question to me. And as you point out here, unlike trying this on the unmoderated wreck-dot, most likely they would have also been happy to simply just answer that for you too. But no Jan.... instead you made it sound more like a "I AM JUST ABSOLUTELY DUMFOUNDED BY YOU PEOPLE" You don't find that condescending? Sure you were. And you did. As you say yourself, you even tried to use examples to abck you up. But I actually agreed with you (albeit in a roundabout way) and that is, that this does not really matter, relative to the question I know you are trying to pose ...so why are you worrying about where they are posting at all in the 1st place?? YOU opened that can of worms! Good question. And a reasonable one too. Why didn't you just ask it just like that in the 1st place, instead of breaking out into one of those "I am just dumbfounded by your people's apparent attitudes" in here? How did you really expect to get a straight simple answer out of that?? And then, I wasn't even remotely involved in this Jan... until you drew me in. Or does it? All in "good clean fun". Yours, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

That's an interesting story you have there Jan, in the "Scared to Jump" link you've attached. You indeed do have the ability to write some good and valuable stuff. However, the link to whatever post of mine you seem to want to point fingers at does not bring me anywhere. I didn't know that I was getting you so hot 'n bothered that you apparently can't even now "type straight". Now, largely because I like you so much Jan (I really do ...even if you do still continually seem to blow me off during each of my rare 1-3 times per year visits, when I get to actually come all the way out there to "cushy" California) I find myself in a position where I need to decide... ...do I continue to "mess with you" or do I let you off the hook? Hmmmm..... decisions, decisions.... (guess which one I've just made ) From your very own story you yourself just pointed us to (and I LOVE this!): I can see Jan, clearly now, ...that even back then you obviously knew better than anyone else. Why can't now the rest of us just see this, accept it and acquiesce too? Oh my, my, my, my, my WHY do all these different people all have to have differing opinions from time to time?? ...Can't they (we all) see our folly? What are we? ...DENSE? Okay now... all "fun" aside, "messing mode" now [off] C'mon now Jan, and maybe I shouldn't have done the above at all, because I can see that this is serious to you (but look-out ...you are in "general skydiving discussions" now - check out those forum rules -and "sticky" posts again: MAYBE THIS SHOULD BE MOVED TO "TALK BACK"?), and in actuality I can see your point. In fact most of us probably can. The only "problem" we have here, and the ONLY point that I have tried to illustrate in any of my posts here (to this thread) is that your perspective (regarding the "real world" definition of "incidents" -and your concern for some jumpers considerations of them here), although valid, just really has no bearing on the intent, the set up, and the discussion rules of the Incidents FORUM. I understand your frustration. As I know you have attempted to even point out here (feel free to fix the broken link in your post), I too indeed can get "frustrated" with some responses in here from time-to-time when people just don't seem to be "getting it". But maybe, sometimes, just like in that story with your early days static line jumpmaster (he didn't seem able to have YOU "get it" either, or vice versa right away -did he?) sometimes realization does not set in until later ...over time. Was he "Dense"? Really? Somehow, I don't think so. Bottom line is that this virtual domain's (nothing more than a fancy bulletin board really) posting rules don't seem to match up EXACTLY with YOUR personal definitions (Valid or not) and you are squaking about it. And some of us are picking on what seems to be your over-blown concerns over just that. Maybe if you got off your elitist pedestal, and maybe mingled with us "commoners" every now & then, let alone allowed yourself to make a jump or two sometimes with us, this sort of thing wouldn't really be that big a deal to you. As far as who posts where on these BB's: You don't make the rules here. GET OVER IT. Does that sum it up okay for you? Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

This is truly one of the funniest threads I have seen in a long time!

Yes. I do. ...re-read my post. Maybe I'm wrong though. Just a bit more information to consider & throw out there from yet another (experienced mishap victim) perspective, that's all. I feel strongly, based upon my experience, that had I been on a 1.3-1 canopy at my experience level at the time, instead of my 1.0-1 that I just happened to be on (I had lent my 190 to another LIGHTER jumper coincidentally), that I would not be here today. Some of us, regardless of how loud it is shouted, still totally delude ourselves as it pertains to percieved abilities under certain progressive wing loadings, despite illustrative experiences of people past (and passed). Not saying that is what necessarily happened here, because obviously I don't KNOW. Only "Bubbles" knows that or not for herself, for sure. But I do think it is worth at least an honest reconsideration and assessment. If it also makes others THINK too, well then all the better. That's my only point, and the only reasoning for recounting my "story" here as well. Again, I am staying comletely out of the "Scott Miller vs. the CRW-dog" controversy. I am neither Scott Miller, nor a CRW-dog personally, myself. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

And THANK YOU for adding it! ...Sincerely. My best wishes to you now for a speedy and hopefully full recovery. I do not speak from inexperience myself (unfortunately) in this regard. Here's my point (and a story): On jump #100-something back in 1998 I also "turned myself into the ground" ...Under my PD210 (loaded at ~1-1). Compression fractured all 5 of my lower lumbar vertebrae (good thing I was already 6' 2" otherwise people might be calling me "shorty" now ). Like you, it was a completely DUMB canopy piloting MISTAKE and was nobody's fault except my own. Since then, I've obviously had a lot of time to think about (and have hopefully learned from) my accident. One of those things I know is that if I were under instead a 1.3 or higher loaded canopy, and had pulled the exact same "stunt" ...I most likely would not even be here today to type this. That's how radical, and DUMB my canopy piloting error was. So yes, absolutely you can hurt yourself under any size canopy. I'm living proof of that. However, and I submit quite vociferously really, that the only thing that "saved me" if you will, was the fact that I was under instead that 1-1 PD. At the time, I had also flown, and had on-hand a Sabre 190 as well (which w/have put me at about 1.2). Had just about like you... roughly 25-30 reasonably "good" landings on it too & at the time otherwise I think ...I would have been saying exactly the same thing: That I can handle it, and that THAT was not the issue. I would have been wrong. Most likely too: DEAD WRONG. Although most of us can fly & land quite compitently, even early in our progressions somewhat higher wing loadings (cause canopies now adays provide more lift, and actual "flight") under "normal" (read: ideal) conditions ...it's instead when the inevitable variables are thrown in that we put ourselves in true peril. Again, I am in a glass house so I am certainly not throwing stones. But it seems to me that plain & simple you were NOT ready for that 1.3+ wingloading, period ...no matter what you "thought". I am not entering the "debate" as to whether anyone felt actually pressured here, pushed in one direction etc. or not, or even if/and/or anyone is getting upset simply because opinions are being posted here in that regard, because that is something I simply do not know/know about. It may be germane for those of you who were actually involved to honestly reflect upon & assess and reconcile; However, even outside of that I do believe that there are lessons to be learned here as a result of your accident. ...Which I do hope for your own sake as well as others, get taken to heart. Heal quickly, but more importantly heal WELL! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

My understanding is that if the Cypres is off, even if it has shut off because it detected a malfunction (in it's systems), then that is it. There should be no excess risk or added danger in say sudden activation because it is OFF. Cypres' do not spontaneously recycle back to "ON". But maybe someone else with more definitive knowledge can further comment on that. As far as losing faith as a result of hearing that in your at-jumprun gear/pin check report ...at your experience level, I suppose (and agree) that you probably should be cut some slack for now wanting to ride the plane down. Anytime you feel unsafe, this should be an option of yours without further fear of critisism. Only as your exerience increases will your ability to confidently discern "real" concerns become more innate. The whole idea is to get you there... more experienced that is... in the 1st place, over time after all. Glad to see you've taken the time to re-read and consider all this. We ALL can become empassioned about our opinions on here from time-to-time, that's for sure! Once you are licensed; to have an RSL or not, to have a Cypres or not ...for now, still, these are all entirely your decision. Just learn about more thoroughly what exactly each one does, and under what circumstances and conditions, then make an INFORMED decision as to which is best for YOU and your circumstances accordingly. Hope all this has helped! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Cross-posted here, ...from the Canopy Relative Work Board accordingly: Exerpted from the full text of the letter contained over there: Although I think it is admirable that this jumper is accepting culpability for him/(her?)self, I do still find myself somewhat disagreeing, and now asking again of you Mike (and/or others), for further opinion on this statement. If instead for instance this jumper actually was under a "gigantic" canopy (let alone reasonable for their weight & wingloading vs. experience level) would not most likely the injuries sustained as a result of the (presumed) "panic turn" been most likely at least somewhat mitigated? This jumper very nearly died from the sounds of it here! ...Granted, that a panic turn, or any low turn close to the ground on any canopy can indeed injure or kill. However, on a higher wing-loaded canopy, the direness of the results, experience and observation tells me, would be also most likely and conversely therefore "amplified" too accordingly ...would they not? I do still think this issue, or component of the issue is in fact, relevant. ...Comments? Best wishes for a speedy and hopefully FULL recovery to this jumper. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Although I think it is admirable that this jumper is accepting culpability for him/(her?)self, I do still find myself somewhat disagreeing, and now asking again of you Mike, for further opinion on this statement. If instead for instance this jumper actually was under a "gigantic" canopy (let alone reasonable for their weight & wingloading vs. experience level) would not most likely the injuries sustained as a result of the (presumed) "panic turn" been most likely at least somewhat mitigated? This jumper very nearly died from the sounds of it here! ...Granted, that a panic turn, or any low turn close to the ground on any canopy can indeed injure or kill. However, on a higher wing-loaded canopy, the direness of the results, experience and observation tells me, would be also most likely and conversely therefore "amplified" too accordingly ...would they not? I do still think this issue, or component of the issue is in fact, relevant. ...Comments? Best wishes for a speedy and hopefully FULL recovery to this jumper. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Pilot Chutes also over time quite simply can and do "wear out". If they look ratty, they probably ARE. Zero-P sometimes might not show as much as the old f-111 ones did either. It may seem "trivial" but now you can see in here that it is not, and that there can be REAL consequences to a weak, worn or deteriorated PC. All components on your rig are there for a reason. This is not a sport where lots of trivial excesses exist. If something is worn or defective, replace it! How many times have we heard: "that'll probably be good for a couple more jumps, but after that I'd get it looked at"? ...I'd sure hate to be wrong on day making that statement. Is it worth it? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Oops. ...I tried to warn you! See HERE Jeremy (and others), There is no need to take what Ron is saying so personally. (or just the opposite, maybe you do, but...) If you can just shove some of that personal bravado/pride aside sometimes and listen to the CONTENT, you will find that oft times he does actually have something valuable to say. Like you say yourself Jeremy, and what I find it interesting you are also asking for some slack yourself now for, is the way your opinions come off so strong ...yet you want to attack or attack/defend back in the same way! Unfortunately now as a result you just happen to be the one getting caught singled out & now in the middle of all this. Bowing out & simply "listening" at the point of (where you responded to Bill Von & myself with): Hmmmm.... "you can learn something new every day -I stand totally corrected" was perfectly appropriate, and held with it no shame at all. I have been "corrected" on these boards over my few years experience here myself many times! You did say: And in that you were "wrong". Would Ron have instead saying it in the fashion that you were "Mistaken", were "incorrect" or had been "Mis-guided" have been gentler, or more "PC"? Perhaps. The difference here though, and current point that Ron as I see it is now trying to get across to you, is that you are trying to enter into a "pissing match" now with him. ...And on the amount of "piss" (read: EXPERIENCE) that you have available in comparison to him?? ...Well, there quite simply is just no contest there. I appreciate that you have attempted to ammend your misguided earlier asserted "points". I can even understand that. But you are getting "busted" on doing that now, and there really is no need for it. Learning is supposed to be good. There should be no shame or embarrassment over inexprience, or having been mistaken or misguided because of it. Please accept the learning experience instead (as you ALMOST did ) and put the "attitude" away. Can that be said to/about Ron too? ...Perhaps, but I can also identify with his frustration. He just wants to keep you safe, and really wants you to LISTEN (which it does not seem like you are doing ...for whatever reason), that's all. Consider it as being the bigger person if you want to. Whatever works for you. In the end analysis hopefully though all the posts, debate, and yes even differences of opinion (I had several with Bill Von earlier too ...remember? ---NO BIG DEAL) have given you something to consider, and constructively take away from all this! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Because in a high-speed mal situation it is VERY EASY to lose track of time (read: alt) and you then may also very easily and before you even realize it run out of BOTH! ...Have you ever heard the phrase "you have the rest of your life to fix the problem" or "you can spend the rest of your life trying to fix it"? Why waste THAT (your LIFE)? Maybe what you thought might be a "simple motion" in reality turns out it isn't. NEVER compromise executing EP's at the proper time, and by the proper altitude for thinking of either mere cost or "convenience"! ...A reserve pack job is worth what? ...$40-45 on the low end, $60-65 on the high, and THAT'S WHAT IT'S THERE FOR! Now consider in comparison what your LIFE is worth. ...Wanna maybe rethink that?? Impacting the ground with a perfectly good reserve canopy still sitting neatly packed away (agreed, saving 45-60 bucks & some inconvenience) is bad form indeed! But that too, is just my opinion. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

POSTED AND PM'D... Okay, fair enough. Try this one then out for size... You are on the plane ride up to alt., now turning on jumprun and your buddy behind you says: "wanna pin-check"? ...You're very safety conscience, that's clear, so you say: "sure". So he opens your flaps, you feel him touching & looking around, then all of a sudden he says: "hey dude ...looks like you forgot to turn your Cypres on" ...it's OFF. ---What do you do? I'd like to hear your HONEST answer to that. P.S. ...not picking on you, and no, you have not particularly, or individually "ticked me off", so please do not worry there. That's the whole purpose of these boards sometimes ...to have some debates. Trust me, I will not "slam" you. Not my style. Besides it also serves NO PURPOSE. I will keep an open mind as to your response. So please, under the hypothetical situation as outlined above (which I HAVE seen, more than once in my experience BTW), what would YOU do? Anyone else ...feel free to go ahead & jump in here and answer this one too. ...I will sit by the wayside, quietly here now for a while and "listen". Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

ABSOLUTELY! ...Please listen to this people and once & for all dispell this common MYTH! Mere convenience or MINOR ($50-60 vs your LIFE) concerns should NEVER enter the mix of decision-making when it comes to safety reactions/EP's etc. in this arena. Saying you will disconnect your RSL after deploying at say 3-grand because you think the winds may have picked up, because you think you MAY be "dragged" by your reserve if you on the ground after landing cut-away, is simply MIS-GUIDED, and INCORRECT. Like Lisa says, it is rather instead a minor inconvenience/cost item that when it comes right down to it, ...is it really worth it? If you are THAT concerned, simply do not jump an RSL in the 1st place. Puh-Leeze people.... this "debate" is not new! ...Will some of you FINALLY begin to get even just a clue??? ---I, for one, am getting really tired of having to "pussy-foot" around this issue. Bill, ...Maybe you want to try that "experiment" as outlined in other threads, similar to what you did with the 45' MYTH too? As Derek used to say.... Please.... people.... "THINK"! Blue Skies, -Grant Edited so as to be more "PC" ...and hopefully avoid being "censored" coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Hmmmm...... Should I start? (or let it go)... coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Uh-oh. Now he's REALLY trying to get me going here, isn't he? I also hope that Ron isn't reading! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

This is fine, and of course in this regard you are completely correct. I do not mean to impose my standards or reasonings upon anybody, the same as I do not desire theirs imposed upon me. Anyone willing to take full accountability and responsibility for THEMSELVES, or those within their charge and accept the full concequences of their actions accordingly, IMO s/be absolutely free to do so. BTW, one other clarification. "Flying" the airplane for my 14yr old son was a somewhat relative term, and at the time did NOT endanger anyone else, other than perhaps the PIC who w/have made his own individual assessments and decisions at the time. "Holding the yoke" briefly at 13k from the right-seat of an otter after ALL other passengers (ie: skydivers) had been discharged, I would hardly call really, flying the airplane. My fault in posting it that way though. Did not mean to merely further muddy the waters here. I do still beleive that anyone who feels they "KNOW" that their 12-13 year old child "can handle it" is delluding themselves however. This is my opinion. I agree chronological age just for age's sake (your 1 day over 15, 16, 17 or 18 for example well taken) can also be arbitrary at best. But somewhere within there, I do believe there is a reasonably presumable minimum threshold point that should be ascribed to, culturally and developmentally. 13 or UNDER in the current modern "western" culture? That one I think can still be argued. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

That's great. But the tunnel, and exiting an aircraft instead from (insert any altitude here) are 2 very distinctly different things, and can not be even REMOTELY compared in this context to the other! And I submit that quite to the contrary that even they can not! My son is 14 years old, and has basically grown up around the DZ, has flown in the plane ..heck even FLOWN THE PLANE (at alt.), is extremely "heads up" and NO FOOL. He also WANTS to skydive. Once he has reached the legal age of independent consent, that will then be his choice. Up until then though even "allowing" anything else would be downright negligently irresponsible ...all due respect to Michael & Joel Mullins notwithstanding. "Heads-up" or not, responsible parental obligation in this regard DICTATES just that ...RESPONSIBILITY. No one NEEDS to skydive. When he gets old enough to appropriately make his choices then of course, he can. Until then, ...the skies will wait. And I'm sure right up until this incident, the parents of this victim also no doubt felt their son was too (very "heads-up"). Otherwise, why or how would they have allowed him to do this in the 1st place? Again, I submit that there is absolutely NO WAY to 100% assuredly tell. And until that CHILD reaches his/her own age of individual consent, it is wholly irresponsible to expose them to risks that are clearly beyond their MINOR status capabilities to themselves fully grasp. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Agreed. So in these instances Bill "back in the day", did you find yourself re-installing your RSL subsequent to periods of seasonal lay-off? If so, what were more specifically your decision factors / impetus that apparently swayed your thinking or position (even if only "temporarilly") regarding the usefulness of the RSL, assuming that you had otherwise previously decided NOT to use one? This is good, reasonable and effective appropriate "thinking" ...and nice of you to put this in here. But Bill, it is also mixing apples with oranges. Your main is not a back-up safety device. Although it adds credence to, and evidences your personal overall wisdom Bill, as strictly applied to this topic, I don't find this analogy germane. And why should any of those instances/examples be considered "acceptable" exposure circumstances at all in the 1st place? Wouldn't one be overall better off in taking steps to ESCHEW these in the first place, rather than feel they are instead merely mitigating them by applying a "band-aid" RSL? This seems lazy and complacent to me. Even you have been one in the past Bill to preach that COMPLACENCY KILLS! ...Again, I submit that staying current in one's training and/or practice, even in the absence of abject "currency" is the safer approach than instead "loading up" on back-up equipment as a perceived appropriate substitute! -Do you disagree? If they feel they truly need that "crutch" in the 1st place, then I think they should reconsider doing the activity at all, in total. ...I don't think you meant to say that exactly as it sounded. Otherwise, in this regard, you and I vociferously disagree! But moreover, what I worry about here Bill, is that lowbie's are reading this. We have the opportunity to provide thinking examples for a "mindset" here. I don't think that you & I in reality diverge too greatly on our opinions on this subject. However, in any way influencing that mindset towards an RSL as being capable of being a SUBSTITUTE for EP drill/practice and capabilities currency, IMHO would be a mistake. Can you stipulate to that? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Not that you did yourself personally, Lisa. Rather, that the statement methinks could however be construed as such by some. I think we've all more fully clarified now, although I still do not understand how any jumper who DOES use and advocate an RSL (again not YOU specifically, Lisa) would also on the other hand for some reason find need to disconnect it every jump after opening. In my total time here on these boards I have still, yet to hear a reasonable/rational explanation for that one. Thanks for taking part in the repartee! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone