Scrumpot

In reply to: "If you are in the boat, and drop one stick into the stream a few seconds after another, would the second stick land on top of the first?" If the 1st stick suddenly "stopped", and began "holding" (relatively) in place (think of the canopy opening) - - - Then YES! ...Yes, it would!!

You lost me there. And maybe it's semantics, and a metaphorical meaning or implication or something you are going for there and I'm missing it. If so I apologize in advance. However, if you truly mean this literally, I find myself here disagreeing with you completely. Personal experience example (and just one of several), and personally witnessed: 1st jump student (AFF) - Tumbles BADLY at pull-time. Enough so that he flings-off his reserve-side instructor - bending RADICALLY and suddenly in a completely unanticipated way trying to reach his main deployment hackey. Grabs his harness and will not release. Pulled-out by the main-side instructor, but the main PC somehow gets "sucked" back into the still badly tumbling student's burble & lodges between the rig & the students back, as he rotates over yet ANOTHER 360 summer-salt. - - In other words, clearly far from the perfect jump! During this whole sequence of events, the student does the right thing - and starts his EP's. Another rotation of the summer-salt occurs and this time around - right AFTER the student has pulled cutaway, the main PC launches. ...I think I'm now about to see and RSL deployment of the reserve, as everything now launches, right? - Still WRONG! So again - nowhere near the perfect skydive! Because the student was in effect in a sitting position right at this time (ass-to-ground) - as the main bag got to line stretch - the main opening shock shear-force actually tore the RSL completely off the riser without pulling the reserve ripcord! ...The student was now in effect in freefall having cut-away his main, but with nothing out at all now above him, to show for it. 3 more tumbles later, and me yelling into my helmet "pull the reserve, pull the reserve" ...That is EXACTLY what the student did. -

Yes, that is still possible. But much more likely and prevalent from poorly maintained cutaway cables and systems over-all, actually. Not just specifically pertaining to hard-housings preventing cable-pinch from linetwists, which is here - what you are referring to. I've unfortunately seen many more hard (cutaway) pulls, occur caused by something as simple as dirty, poorly maintained cables and systems actually. - Regardless of which system they happen to be. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Reveal your true identity. This is (has got to be - the thought-process similarities are just way too striking) really "gregpso" relocated now to the states, from downunder. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Okay then, well... with all that I have read (here) and seen (your youtube link) - I am going to reply Jim, that sorry... I just don't see it here at all - - - I mean really? ....That this was (apparently, according to your accusations anyway) an entire plane-load of in-cahoots, conspiracy driven (attempted) murderers - all out to go on that load with nothing more than an abject nefarious intent, and plan / idea / focus to drown you? Really? ...You are serious about that accusation? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Okay, let's try and play nice, and get to the bottom of this... I've now watched the video. 1. How many jumps do you have? - Tell us a little more about yourself. Your experience level, etc. I mean, after all, with your video, you are all about naming names, being "specific"; naming specific people, their "involvement", places, etc. 2. You really think this is (was) a (purposeful, active) conspiracy between all these people? - Including the tandem instructor, and then the dude with the GoPro. They had both planned this between them, and were in cahoots? Then... WTF are you talking about here? Now all of a sudden you go from naming names & being "specific", to instead completely circumspect and inuendo. - ...Who begged to get on the plane that otherwise wasn't being allowed (presumably) - but you were (apparently) asked (but didn't want to - yet still did) ...then almost killed you? Your stories here, aren't making much (rational) sense. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Then clearly - They made the RIGHT decision, and you made a wrong one. So... ...your point is? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Thar ya go. ...Now the munchkin's are startin' to put some of the puzzle pieces together! - coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I've said it before, I will say it again: Wendy (both Wendy's) are who I want to be even close to like ...when I grow up! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

And have you ever thought about the possibility that maybe you even might have been killed because of it (firing & dual-fowling your deployment) - had you actually had that cypres, on that jump? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Look at how many flaps, and in what configuration(s) enclose your reserve container. Then, overlay that with how (whichever rig you are considering) is even further structured with your main closed. Imagine/envision how your reserve may need to clear all that, and effectively deploy in multiple scenarios. Including potentially even with your main still in the pack-tray. Or not. And just go for whatever is seemingly the "coolest" at the moment, and have at it. Form, function, functionality - Doesn't any of that even enter into anyone's considerations anymore? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Do we know that the reserves were still contained ("locked") within their freebags upon impact in these incidents? If they were not, and the freebags had been "cleared", but full reserve inflation not yet attained - then it could be argued that some measure additional altitude might have mattered. I hear what you are saying with this statement, and I do not necessarily disagree with this (as a concern) at all, either. However, just as I did here, I think the 2 points can (and perhaps should be) separated - and considered on their own separate, individual merits. In other words - even if full reserve-deployment hesitation (regardless method of activation) can be completely and successfully addressed (as I hear you are calling for) - might not still, in any case ALSO - activation altitude settings for (perhaps maybe even student-only, or specific in particular) AAD's be worthwhile considering? I don't see as the one, even if you can almost nearly 100% assure full reserve deployment, inflation and deceleration "within parameters" (being resolved) - completely cancelling-out, or being mutually exclusive either, to the other. I guess that's what you mean by "if it will help", though? I agree - we should not just look at one perspective, without fully considering and addressing ALSO, the other. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Are you sure? Remember - you need to also take into account the total "exposure time" to the relative "danger element", when making that (or any statistically relevant/correct) statement. Once you have adjusted statistically your "accidents per", relative to total actual environment exposure time - I would be interested to see if you still come to that same conclusion. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Why would you do this? Sounds to me like a great opportunity to establish potentially even BAD procedure / habit, that will only then later, be quite difficult to "un-train" / correct. Like someone else has already replied - get your advice FROM YOUR INSTRUCTORS ...not from on here - even if supposedly well-meaning, none-the-less overly exuberant themselves, unknowing (the potential consequences of their ill-advice) novices. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

That sounds perfectly rational. Then though, in a subsequent post - you go ahead and say you are just going to go with the Xfire 119. - What would be wrong with say a 129? Not a "huge" difference between the 2, but a somewhat more logical step in the progression. If your ultimate plan is to get to a true "pocket-rocket" (sub-100) someday, THIS is supposed to be just an "interim step" to that anyway, right? So, IMO - Go with a 129... fly the heck outa it, dial it in, and take even your own advice ...or not. I like the guys post with the rational-face vs the irrational-face analogy. You do seem to have both here. Hope that (for you - whichever one it is) the right one wins the "fight". coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I see your point, but still I think that AAD is closer to reserve (reserve activation device?) than "everything else after goggles" Okay - Let's swing this pendulum of consideration/thought-process back maybe just a wee bit from either side of the "extremes"... Real world thought process / consideration example(s) - - - So, you have @80 jumps (according to your profile) ...Which is more important to you, and effective at getting you right now, to become a competent, safe skydiver, presuming you cannot find gear within your affordability/price range right now, that has / with an AAD? Which do you do: 1. You stop jumping altogether until you can save up enough $ to attain a rig that does have an AAD. - or - 2. You buy that perfectly good rig and combination of gear that is right for you in every other way as it exists now - however, that does not have an AAD, because you have a choice (as you apparently do) - and you jump it maintaining your currency (double-entendre & pun slightly intended ) - until such time as you can then afford that AAD to add it in some time later/then. Which do you do? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I am not aware of a specific list, or a list dedicated specific to AAD requirement, no. I don't think I am necessarily the begin-all and end-all authority on that though. So even with that (and you will note, I did, at least try to answer this directly for you) - I could be also wrong. Okay, here you go -

Doesn't the DZ listing in the back of Parachutist provide this information? ...I do not happen at this very moment have one right here available to put in front of me, but I at least thought that there, it did (state something like under each's address "AAD Required? Y/N"). I know the on-line USPA dz locater does not show this. How about the DZ-locater on here? Maybe not a list, per-se ...but at least the information can be looked up for any specific DZ you may be interested in anyway. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

feeding the trolls again I see, eh Dave? Not sure how many times, and how many ways this OP is going to over & over again, basically post (and posit) the relatively same thing. Here - OP... I'll help you out (in advance) on your next (anticipated) question: "I find myself in freefall, I'm on my own personal now bought 'cheap' rig. I just had the reserve repacked, and I've only made 3 jumps on it since. But I've got this horrible looking ball of Sh** of a main now over my head. ...Should I cut away now, knowing my repack $$ haven't been amortized over a significant enough # of jumps yet to "break even", or try to keep the $$ in my bank for my full anticipated 180 days & then ...what would by potential cost(s) differential(s) be?" Sorry. I just could not resist. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Yes, and with everyone else behind him in the plane also yelling "go-go-go-go"! Freeze frame also at 12sec shows clearly, the hacky still SECURELY and fully in place, whilst the bag - now exposed to the exterior windstream - only then, and with the hacky still in BOC - launching. Yelling "go-go-go" there in that situation, especially if the person who was doing that was seeing his main closing flaps appearing open (but nothing - especially PC clearly out) was probably the worst thing they could have done, and everyone there on that load was extremely "lucky" indeed. [edit to add] THIS IS NOT THE VIDEO I THINK SOMEONE WAS LOOKING FOR, OF THE PILOT CHUTE HANGING OUT - that we are now commenting on. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Oops, sorry - I just noticed that going to their main directory URL (www.ismacs.net) - they actually do expand much further than just singer. Thanks Martin, for posing this! Very interesting. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I wonder why they seem to only focus strictly on Singer Machines only. Nothing on Pfaff's, et al? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

10-4, copy that! ...I'll have to just give him a call then, and "harass" him that way. Thanks Douglas, for letting me know. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Anyone heard from or seen Mike lately? Mike - are you out there??? ...Seems like quite awhile since I've either seen or heard anything from you. I'm beginning to get a little worried. Some of our young bucks in here, are desperately needing an MJOSparky reality-check, like no-one but the ORIGINAL, ONE & ONLY can dole out! I've even lost track of him from / on my FB page / friend list! Calling MJOSparky... Buddy... You out there? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Be prepared for some Full-Face helmets to fog (or even ice) up potentially - in certain conditions. Just something to be aware of, and prepared for, in case it has not also been thought about or otherwise considered too, is all. Being suddenly in FF "surprised" by this occurring, is no fun, and has caused problems (and at least one serious incident that I am aware of) to some in the past. coitus non circum - Moab Stone