chuckakers

???? You get three responses - 2 of them asking questions to better guide the advise - and the result is you thanking people for their replies and declaring a decision? Either I'm not understanding your original post or you are reaching a conclusion without getting anywhere close to enough information that you originally asked for. While you were wondering about going faster I was busy wondering if you should UPSIZE to get current. Total disconnect for me. I suggest you speak to the DZO, S&TA, or other local pro before getting in an airplane. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I am a physics professor, and this topic was discussed AT LENGTH many years ago in the canopy control forum on DZ.COM, to include the effects of gusts and wind shears. You could do a search. Dude, this is the wrongest place to pull out your diploma. Might want to study up before you call out Professor Kallend. Intellectually he'll eat your lunch and take your soda money. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Too many unknown factors to lend advise. How many total jumps? How much time in the sport total? How many jumps on that canopy before taking a break? How was your performance on that canopy (YOUR performance, not the canopy's) How long out of the sport? What is the MSL altitude at your DZ? How big is the landing area? What is your age? What is your physical fitness level? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You just beat me to the post. My god, is that awful or what? But it's instructive to us in (at least) one way: it points out the value of a DZ spokesman promptly speaking to reporters and giving them at least "something" sooner rather than later. Here, you can see the DZ manager did speak to the reporter, but only to say they didn't know anything yet. Well, that was helpful: it left the reporter to get his info from the cop who didn't know what he was talking about, and a whuffo eyewitness whose "opinion" about parachute equipment was dutifully quoted (without rebuttal). Oh, and apparently both this fatality and a prior fatality at that DZ were because.. wait for it... the chutes failed to open. This is a poster-child example of what happens when the DZ doesn't take immediate and proactive control over the message after an accident. We can all bitch till the cows come home about reporters' and other laypersons' lack of diligence, but if the DZOs are careless enough to leave the barn door wide open, well, that horse is gonna bolt. Andy, we don't know that the DZO didn't give a factual statement. The problem is often that when the press gets a vague "we are still investigating the incident", they turn that into "the DZO didn't know anything" and go look for another source. That may very well have happened here. If we can't trust the accuracy of the reporters story - and that was clearly demonstrated here - then we also can't trust that the DZO failed to give a statement that was as factual as possible for the moment. I work in the media and see it every day. When a statement is given - especially in incidents that can be sensationalized - reporters continue to hammer until they get something that satisfies their thirst for a good story. That often means taking pieces from a variety of sources and putting them together in a way that is logical in their ignorant minds. On one side, we of course want to get ahead of any steering of the story down the wrong road, but we must also be sure to give out only factual and substantiated information. Speculating or opining for the purpose of having something to give the media is never a good idea, and of course immediately following a fatality there really is very little factual, verified information to give. Better to just say "the incident is under investigation by the appropriate authorities and we will release more information when it becomes available". Side note: I personally have no problem with the uneducated "chutes didn't open" story. I know it's seldom accurate and pisses off skydivers but it puts the story to bed in many cases and that's what we really need. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Cash. Help them get to the point where they can make money at the DZ and they will be there at every opportunity. Don't explain the motivation, though. They will protest against it if it's your idea. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I think we're ok keeping this conversation here. It's relevant to the subject, IMO. I'm on the fence with your view, but we may be closer together than our posts would indicate. When I spoke of folks who only want to use "old fashion" inputs to get to the ground, I wasn't referring to the technique you mentioned (repeated pull->full glide->pattern->flare). I would be the first to encourage those folks to get out of that habit. The inability to think strategically and maneuver accordingly is one of the problems we have in the sport today. As a load organizer at a large DZ I have the important and sometimes unpleasant duty of discussing this stuff with folks who aren't getting it. The folks I'm referring to really do "get it", but just choose to fly old school. The best example I can present are older jumpers with years of experience. They by no means are the type of jumpers you referred to. They understand things that many do not like vertical separation, modification of flight path to avoid conflict, etc, and can make it happen. They don't use techniques commonly taught today but they are perfectly safe in any environment. I think many jumpers today confuse perfection of technique with mastery of skillful understanding. We have become very good at teaching people how to do things with their wings, but that doesn't always translate to a jumper making good choices, especially under pressure. Unfortunately our data collection on incidents is miserable. I think we may have reached a point in performance technology that requires us to make better use of the information we could glean from incidents - especially close calls where we can get first-hand, real-time information - to advance our safety protocol. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Because it is safer to assume that and act now than to try something cool and risk another problem from preventing you from dealing with it later. 1-10-100 principal. The faster you fix a problem, the less energy it costs to fix the problem. Lets say you chop from 12k.... Well you can always follow your main. Yes, you might lose the freebag. Now lets say you decide to ride the wild ride. Soon you find yourself dizzy and starting to black out. Guess what? Now it might be too late to chop. Why risk it? Again, 2000 dollar vs my life. Easy to answer. Precisely correct. You main is a mess and you're relatively ok with it AT THAT MOMENT. You have absolutely no idea what is going to happen IN THE NEXT MOMENT. The relatively gentle spin you're in could accelerate at any moment to a high g-force situation where you might not be able to do what you planned to do--that is, ride it down to a lower altitude and then chop. I've had two--and as soon as I figured out that my main was fubar I chopped because I knew exactly what the (good) choices were AT THAT MOMENT. Things change--especially when you're out of control falling like a brick. If I can do it now I will. BOOM! This is exactly what I've been preaching for years. We will never know how many incidents could have been avoided by jumpers not f*cking with mals that went from monkey business to ape-shit crazy. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

too cool. Although our kids have not accomplished what yours have in the sport, but I agree. DZ kids grow up in an enriched environment. Chaotic, sometimes crazy, but interesting and intelligent and self reliant. Many adults comment on how our kids are amazing. I think the wonderful skydivers they grew up around had something to do with it.

Two kids, both raised on the DZ. The wife and I opened a DZ (Skydive USA, TX) when they were teens, in part to get them in the air at 16. Daughter Heather worked our manifest and started jumping at 16. She made a couple hundred jumps and then headed to college. Degree, husband, baby, second degree, second baby all kept her mostly out of the sport. She did get current about a year ago, but found out shortly after that she was pregnant so she's back on the sidelines with a toddler now. Son Justin also started at 16 after several years as a packer/loader/catcher/everything else at the family operation. He went balls out. Vidiot, AFF/I, rigger, open class h/p canopy pilot. He now flies camera on Arizona Airspeed, earning his first National gold last year and hopefully his first international gold this August at the World Meet. Raising our kids on the DZ was one of the best parenting decisions ever. Getting them in the air at the minimum legal age was an even better one. I think my kids would agree. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Do you disagree with flying a canopy in all flight modes before downsizing? The commonly heard advice is to get to know everything about your wing before downsizing - would you say that does not include becoming comfortable with front riser use? [This is a genuine question - not a trap or a disagreement with your statement] I believe a jumper should be fully competent with his/her canopy relative to flying style before downsizing. That means different things to different people. If a jumper uses techniques like front riser input, it obviously makes sense to master that skill with more nylon overhead before trying it with less nylon overhead. However, if front riser input (or any other maneuver) is not in the jumper's bag, it makes no sense to perform them for the sake of following some arbitrary advice and might even prove dangerous. Many jumpers simply have no need or desire to use every control technique available to them. Look around at the DZ. How many people are manipulating canopies with anything more than left toggle, right toggle, brake, and flare? Not too many at most DZ's. The use of techniques beyond simple glide and steer are an individual choice. I have always been a big proponent of letting the swoop cowboys do their thing. Hell I was one of them for 15 years. However I feel the same way about people on the other end. If a skydiver doesn't care to use performance techniques, they shouldn't be considered a second class canopy pilot because of that choice. Back to your question - I do believe there is a point in wing loading and canopy choice where a jumper does need a complete understanding of all input and outcome possibilities. However, people who progress to that performance level typically want to learn those skills. If they don't they fall into the "hotdog" category and are probably already flying outside their skill set. We all know those guys. That's not the jumper I'm talking about. I'm talking about the recreational weekend jumper who wants a little more performance but is still in the middle of the performance envelope. I see no need to wring out a 170 at 1 to 1 doing things a jumper has never done before and will never do again in preparation of not doing those things on a 150. I agree with mastery of flying style before downsizing up to but not beyond the point where high performance technique is necessary to remain safe. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

And modest, too. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

This conversation took a turn. I agree that the use of risers for specific purposes is fine, effective, whatever. My original point was about front risers... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4611881#4611881 I guess I was being too general in my comments as the thread progressed, so... Yes using risers to avoid is valid. Yes using risers to turn back the DZ is valid. Yes there are other valid uses for risers. My point was more about people who insist that jumpers need to learn and use all the various control techniques - particularly front risers - to be competent, safe jumpers and I disagree with that mindset. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the VAST MAJORITY of jumpers never use front risers in routine canopy flight, yet we don't see them bouncing off the turf any more (and possibly less) than jumpers who do. Sometimes new generations of jumpers begin to believe that people who aren't using the very latest techniques and gear are dangerous or lacking in some way. That bothers me. I love to see the looks on those people's faces when my old fart buddies show up at the DZ with open-riser rigs, fabric hats, and no altimeters. And then when they see them flat pack - oh boy! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So people started dying/ getting hurt under canopy only after starting to use fronts/rears?

Not every DZ has "readily available" rentals in all sizes. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So people started dying/ getting hurt under canopy only after starting to use fronts/rears?

Funny, we survived quite nicely for decades without anyone ever touching a riser - front or rear, and I can't think of a single situation I've ever been in that required the use of front risers because someone was in front of me or any other scenario. I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with exploring/learning/mastering all that a canopy is capable of, but the use of risers is not a necessary component of safe flight. Disagree. Or rather, I would say pilots who spend the time and energy to learn their available control inputs (including fronts, rears, harness) are safer pilots. I think people get hurt year after year because they only know how to turn or fly or land one way. Having to land out, downwind of the target area greatly increases the chances of winding up hurt when you didn't think touching risers would make a safer pilot. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Work? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Many years ago I had a reserve loop give way on the ground and noticed a distinct wear point. Upon inspection there was a tiny section of roughness on a reserve grommet that was just enough to chew at the closing loop until it gave. Might have a rigger inspect the grommets with a high-powered magnifying glass. Trouble spots can be miniscule in size. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Keep that attitude. It will serve you well. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

(And they will likely borrow your rig for the whuffos, which is another reason to not take a nice rig.) Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

In a static wind situation, correct. The point of turbulence is that it's rapidly changing wind speeds and direction. The canopy will try and keep a study wind speed (assuming no input from the jumper) during that change. That means, if the winds slow down dramatically in reference to the canopy, it will speed up. This will have an effect on both groundspeed, V and H. Why do you think we don't like landing in turbulence? I think folks were trying to keep it simple for the OP but now that you've mentioned the canopy trying to maintain a study wind spreed, well.... Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

A boat is in a river going 20 mph. It doesn't matter if the boat is traveling upstream, downstream, or sideways to the flow of the river. The speedometer will read 20 mph. It doesn't matter if the canopy is flying upwind, downwind, or crosswind relative to the movement of the air mass. It is a mass within a mass so it only cares about that relationship. Picture sitting in a hot air balloon 500 feet off the ground. The wind can be blowing 20 mph yet it will be still in the balloon because the balloon has zero relative speed to the air around it, even though both the balloon and the wind are moving at 20 mph across the ground. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

It fits perfectly my criteria. But as I understand it, it cannot by more precise than 100ft ? That's correct. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Digitude. It was the first and simplest digital altimeter ever. Just two numbers for thousands and hundreds. Even has a lighted display for night jumps. I have a black one I will sell you cheap. Been in my closet for 15 years and works fine. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There's no reason a person couldn't use loops on the rears assuming there's enough room to mount them, but I can see a problem with the concept. When transitioning from front loops to rear risers or toggles, the jumper releases tension on the loop while pulling the fingers out. That works fine because the jumper is also transitioning from diving to not diving. When transitioning from rear loops to toggles the jumper can't afford the momentary loss of lift that would occur when releasing tension on the loop to get the fingers out. Notice that when a canopy pilot transitions from rears to toggles there is seldom a release of tension. The jumper typically releases the rears and continues downward with the toggles, maintaining much needed lift at the entire time. I guess you could play with technique on releasing the loops, but I for one wouldn't want to take the risk of having a finger hang up in a loop at that stage of the landing. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX