chuckakers

Correct. Because if the RSL was perfect for every emergency scenario, then there wouldn't be the need to even have the shackle in the first place, and located where we can reach it. They could just design rigs with the RSL permanently affixed in an out of the way location where it wasn't exposed. But the very fact that we do have an accessible and disconnectable RSL, is recognition of the fact by gear manufacturers that sometimes you might NOT want to use it. And thuse we have have the design that we do, and the option to choose whether or not to leave it engaged. Incorrect. The reason the RSL is detachable is so a post-landing cutaway can be performed if necessary without deploying the reserve, or for when an RSL-equipped rig is used for disciplines like camera work or CReW when an RSL is not recommended. Where do you people get this stuff???? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

We've got one. Not "in some ideal world," but here and now. It's the snap shackle on the RSL. If you have enough time to decide that you want a delay before your reserve opens, you have enough time to reach up and grab it. It's something that needs to be practiced, and I'll bet most jumpers don't practice it anywhere near enough (how often do we practice pulling the cutaway and reserve handles?). But it's a valid option. It is not wise to waste time screwing with the RSL shackle in the middle if a malfunction. Are there scenarios in which a jumper would have time to release the RSL safely? Of course there are. However the vast majority of main mals occur at the bottom of the jump when performing EP's quickly is critical. A jumper can think they are capable of all kinds of things while on the ground solving the sports' woes in their head, but adding a step to the EP's that requires fiddling with a little shackle (often while wearing a fullface helmet that restricts vision below the jumper's chin) is not a good idea. Possibly even more dangerous is the decision and execution time required in the added step. The jumper must first decide whether or not to release the RSL. Under the stress of a mal that can take several seconds and the jumper may need those seconds depending on altitude. In fact, that added time required to make the decision and then execute the process could put the jumper at an altitude where they NEED the RSL that they just disconnected. I'm sure some on here will reply with a million reasons why putting the extra step in EP's is ok or even superior to not adding it. Don't bother. If you want to do it, do it. Just understand that it could cost you. Another reason to keep the EP's simple and fast is the possibility of problems after EP's. The altitude wasted screwing with the RSL could leave a jumper over an unsafe area without sufficient time to fly out of trouble or avoid obstacles. The adage used by pilots is applicable here - "altitude above you is useless". Likewise, if there are problems with the reserve deployment altitude is your best friend. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Sound like idiots. You might mention the DZ by name. Great way to warn others. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There is no insurance available in the United States that covers liability for skydiving activities. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Wow, that's rich. You won't use an RSL but you admit that you have an AAD in case you "would try to get stable too long". That's utterly ridiculous, my friend. Folks, what Blue is advocating goes against every known best practice in skydiving. Could you have an entanglement because of an unstable reserve deployment? Of course. Are the chances of it it happening greater than that of going in by staying in freefall after a cutaway? Not even close. Look up the stats on accidents and you'll see that is true. That's why every instructional doctrine I've ever seen instructs jumpers to deploy their reserve immediately upon a successful cutaway. So who's right, Blue or the rest of the world? As I said in a previous post and will repeat for the noobs, it is NEVER alright to sacrifice altitude for stability after chopping. The odds of an entanglement - especially on modern gear - are very slim even if the jumper is unstable. I jump at a large DZ and see chops on a very regular basis and have NEVER seen a jumper with an RSL have an entanglement after chopping. In fact, I've been the sport for nearly 30 years and have observed literally dozens - maybe hundreds - of cutaways and have NEVER personally known a single jumper that had a post-chop entanglement, RSL or not. However, I have known several that went in because they didn't have an RSL, including a dear friend with almost 1,000 jumps who is on the list in the original post. Blue, you can do things any way you want. I wish you luck. Given your choice of procedures, you may need it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Beside that don't forget about students because they also read this forum and if you say something with your experience for them is holy. I don't like RSL because I like my universal algorithm. If you have malfunction with hard spining it always works 1. Higher deployment. 2. Time to get stable 3. Reserve in stable position but RSL doesnt ask you how hard is your line twist or what is your body position Another problem in my opinion is bad association in the air. If everybody go lower we go lower as well, there is no time to stabilise and that's why RSL is sometimes better. and also not always people are trained how to get stable quickly after cutting away. It would be good to spend some time in tunel and learn it instead of worthless things Quote I assume you mean that when a group goes lower than planned before breaking off that others get sucked into going with them. If that's what you mean I refer you to my statement above that things don't always go as planned. In fact, if that's what you meant, I'd say you just made my point for me. As for teaching people to get stable quickly after chopping, exactly how would one train for that? Should we have a cutaway rig at every DZ so people can practice whacking mains? And tunnel training for regaining stability is fine, but it can't reproduce getting slung away after chopping a spinning mal or other more violent mals. Besides that, stability IS NEVER a bigger priority than altitude after chopping. NEVER! Once again, look at history. You might be bullet-proof but the jumpers who have died were not. Don't want to wear an RSL? Don't. Just understand that you are at greater risk of eating dirt without one than with. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Blue, you're being a bit simplistic. We're all big boys and girls here. We get that the death was from a failure to land with a properly functioning parachute. The rest of us are digging a bit deeper than that. Y'all can do the back n forth on RSL's forever if you like but there are a few undeniable facts. Fact: Every year jumpers die because they fail to deploy a reserve after chopping or fail to deploy it with sufficient altitude to check their descent for landing - some because they start the sequence late and some because they had the time to complete the reserve deployment but for some reason still failed to. Fact: (this one's for you, Blue) In nearly every case in which someone without an RSL died, the accident analysis reveals that an RSL might have - and in many case almost certainly would have - saved the jumpers life. Fact: Historically there have been many, many more deaths in incidents where an RSL would have likely saved the jumper than in incidents where the RSL played a role in a fatality. Argue all you want but you can not deny the facts. If a person chooses not to jump with an RSL, so be it. It's their choice just as jumping without an AAD is. However, from a purely statistical point of view the facts support the use of RSL's as a way to reduce the risk of bouncing. For the record, I have 11 reserve rides, 10 that required whacking a main. I'm pretty sure I've got the process down. Still, I just took delivery of a new rig (a sweet new Curv, thank you Sandy and company) and for the first time in 28 years I have an RSL equipped system. Do what you want folks, but I've decided to go to an RSL and believe your chances are better with one as well. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Bet you had to walk a mile uphill in the snow wearing nothing but flip flops and torn tie-dye T-shirt to board the Ford Tri-Motor too. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Of course. Taking one's legstraps off immediately upon landing is of great importance. I have jumped rigs with quick ejectors. They were bulking and uncomfortable compared to today's slim hardware but hey, they ejected quickly and what could be better than that? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

For that statement to be true - hypothetically or otherwise - one would have to know the motivations of the person doing the withholding. There are an infinite number of reasons a person might withhold, not just to "intentionally make sure people keep dying". One does not prove the other. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

It's their right to do that. It's my right to call them selfish cowards. In a case such as you mention where they're intentionally trying to make sure people keep dying, I'd say substantially worse. Yes, it is your right, and it's my right to believe you're acting like a an ass. You think anyone that isn't for skydiving is somehow vehemently against it. You're going a long way with your logic saying that if a whuffo family member of a deceased jumper won't release equipment for inspection that they are "intentionally trying to make sure people keep dying". Based on your logic, if someone doesn't try to help you, they must be trying to kill you. Geez, Dood. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

IIRC, the AADs went back to the families, who declined to provide them to Airtec for examination. Mark Wow...really? Something I never thought about, but may be a good idea to let my loved ones know it's my wish to allow for any & all investigation be made, in the hope of furthering the safety of the sport..."if' something ever happens that is. Yeah I may need to advise my family not to be selfish idiots. It might considered be too harsh to deem people who would do that as such, but I'm standing by it because they're actively impeding efforts to prevent other people from suffering the fate of their loved ones. Way over the line, brother. What a family decides concerning the release of AAD data, video footage, or other possibly helpful information is none of our business. Sure that information might be helpful in analyzing the accident, but we don't know the personal circumstances of the deceased's family or why they don't want to release it. Keep in mind that many families don't like their loved ones jumping to begin with. For many of those people, helping in the analysis would be akin to helping the sport - the sport that killed their family member as they see it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

IIRC, the AADs went back to the families, who declined to provide them to Airtec for examination. Mark Wow...really? Something I never thought about, but may be a good idea to let my loved ones know it's my wish to allow for any & all investigation be made, in the hope of furthering the safety of the sport..."if' something ever happens that is. Yeah I may need to advise my family not to be selfish idiots. It might considered be too harsh to deem people who would do that as such, but I'm standing by it because they're actively impeding efforts to prevent other people from suffering the fate of their loved ones. And I assume skydivers have informed the families how important the data in these AADs are, and they still don't want to send them in. If this would have happened in 'normal life', let's say a car crash with a videocamera in the car the families don't have the option to keep the camera, do they? A camera is no different than any other property. Unless it is suspected of containing evidence of criminal activity, is somehow connected to a suspected crime, or is stolen, police would not be justified in seizing it. Likewise the footage on the camera is the property of the person who shot it (or the copyright holder in the case of someone shooting for hire) and is not subject to seizure without cause. I couldn't tell you what the laws are about cops demanding to see video footage in the event of an accident, but seizing a camera or master footage without probable cause would be a pretty clear 4th Amendment violation. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I would think following the requirements of an STC is covered somewhere in the FAR's. Am I wrong about that? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Ah, but a sport rig isn't required for someone planning to stay in the plane - like the pilot, for example. An observer who is given a pilot's rig would not have a choice to jump legally unless there was an actual emergency. I have not said that observer rides are against the regs. There are several ways to do them legally. My point is that a person who boards the plane with the intention of landing in it - as in a stated observer - must be in an approved seat. What you are describing is nothing but a skirt the reg move. Good for you, I suppose. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

With an open door you must have a rig on. You can't sign the waiver to go for a ride if you are not 18 regs or not. Not true in either case. There are many planes that don't require non-jumpers to wear a parachute. Whether or not a person needs a rig is based on whether the inflight door was approved with or without a parachute use requirement. Otters, Caravans, etc. have in-flight doors but do not require the pilot or non-jumpers to wear a parachute. On the age issue, signing a waiver has nothing to do with FAR's and a DZ is completely legal to take a minor as long as all regulations are being complied with. Many (most?) DZ's would refuse a minor, but that would be because of liability, not because of regulation. Wrong! Read it again Chuck, you must have missed the last 3 words. regs or not At my DZ and every other DZ I have jumped at for over 30 years you do not get in the plane without a rig and a signed waiver period. Don't like it? Go somewhere else (you will probably get the same answer) Then you and I have had dramatically different experiences. I have personal knowledge of many, many "DZ kids" - mine included - going for rides long before they were 18. I have worked at DZ's, managed DZ's, and owned a DZ. There were minors taken on observer rides at each one I've been associated with. Some were legal (co-pilot seat of Twin Otter, Porters, Caravans, and King Airs), and some not legal (sitting on the floor of a Cessna). I even know a couple kids that got to ride on the toilet seat in the back of a very, very fast King Air while their ol' man was away at a competition. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I didn't say it was enforced. That wasn't the context of the conversation. I said it's against the FAR's - and it is. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

With an open door you must have a rig on. You can't sign the waiver to go for a ride if you are not 18 regs or not. Not true in either case. There are many planes that don't require non-jumpers to wear a parachute. Whether or not a person needs a rig is based on whether the inflight door was approved with or without a parachute use requirement. Otters, Caravans, etc. have in-flight doors but do not require the pilot or non-jumpers to wear a parachute. On the age issue, signing a waiver has nothing to do with FAR's and a DZ is completely legal to take a minor as long as all regulations are being complied with. Many (most?) DZ's would refuse a minor, but that would be because of liability, not because of regulation. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

All depends on what the man with the badge says. I would never show up at an air show demo with the jumpers on board. I would have them meet me there because I know the Feds would be there and depending on their mood it could be an issue. You can't use the "thats the way we do it" answer when it's in the regs. Industry standards do not change what the regs say. I couldn't do the ride to another airport with all the seats in, legally, if somebody was paying me. Wait a minute. You think it's ok to take an observer who will have to sit on the floor in clear violation of FAR's by simply charging or not charging for the ride, yet you wouldn't fly demo jumpers to the demo site in fear of getting busted? Mr. Cooper, you certainly have an interesting way of seeing things. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Every fed I've ever spoken with about observer rides disagrees with you. Jumpers on board a ferry flight to a demo are "engaging in sport parachuting" because they are jumping when they reach the intended drop zone. I doubt a fed would push the issue just because they land at the demo site before the jump. An observer is in no way engaged in the jumping process and MUST use an approved seat. I've been over it dozens of times with my FSDO and individual field folks over the years and this was always their interpretation. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I think you are talking about observer rides from an air commerce perspective. I'm talking about the legality of allowing a stated non-jumper to sit on the floor. Paying or not, anyone who is not engaged in the jump (observing is not "participating in"or "engaging in" the process) must be in an approved seat. Maybe I don't completely understand your context. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Doing it for free or charging for the slot would make a difference in the requirements. 119.1(6) I don't understand your comment. 119.1 it appears to only address pilot requirements for various types of flights. Couple questions: 1. How would the pilots qualifications change the legality of an observer using the floor as a seat? 2. How would charging or not charging an observer for the ride change the seating or parachute use requirements? Concerning the original post... The ONLY people authorized to sit anywhere other than an approved seat (or child safety seat) are people on board the aircraft with the intention of making a parachute jump (see FAR below). The parachute use requirement and the seating requirement are completely separate issues. The parachute use requirement addresses flights in aircraft equipped with an in-flight door and is determined by how the STC was written. The seating requirement addresses who is and is not required to sit in an approved seat during any flight - skydiving or otherwise. So yes, if an observer takes a ride in a plane with an in-flight door that requires the use of a parachute, that observer would also be required to wear one. However, the ride would only be legal if the observer sits in an approved seat during the entire flight. The floor is NEVER a legal place for a non-jumper to sit. I don't know of a plane in which that configuration would be typical during jump operations. All the planes that I know of that have an STC requiring parachute use are also planes that don't have a an approved seat available for a non-jumper - like Cessnas. There are a couple configurations I can think of that would be covered by both regs. I'm pretty sure it would be legal to put the rear seat in a Cessna and have the observer sit in it while also wearing a parachute. That would amount to sitting in an approved seat in a plane with an in-flight door that requires everyone to wear a parachute. Likewise, in a Cessna with a rear door (like a 206 cargo door set-up) an observer could sit in an installed co-pilot seat. We've heard a million different opinions on the observer ride issue over the years and as a former DZO I researched it extensively, including getting interpretations from the FSDO and picking the brains of my local feds. EVERY result was the same. Anyone on board a plane who does not intend to jump must be in an approved seat - period. Anyone on board a plane requiring the use of an approved parachute for all occupants must wear one whether they plan to jump or not - period. FAR follows: From FAR Part 91.... "§91.107 Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child restraint systems. (a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator— (1) No pilot may take off a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person's safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness. (2) No pilot may cause to be moved on the surface, take off, or land a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board has been notified to fasten his or her safety belt and, if installed, his or her shoulder harness. (3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may: (i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device; (ii) Use the floor of the aircraft as a seat, provided that the person is on board for the purpose of engaging in sport parachuting; Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I never met Laura, but if Grimmie says she she was good people I miss never getting the chance. Blue skies, Laura. I'll meet you over there. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Do you know the sky was crowded on the referenced jump? With proper planning, a selfie - like nearly anything in skydiving - can be done safely. Clear air and a tethered camera/helmet should deal with the vast majority of the risks. TI's with hand-cams capture selfies all the time. Would you consider that dangerous? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

+1 The vast majority of running/hopping/sliding/faceplant landings are caused by jumpers simply not milking the last ounce of flare before putting their feet on the ground. As TK mentioned, keeping your feet up and flaring deeper and deeper until the canopy truly won't support your weight will produce the slowest airspeed before touchdown. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX