chuckakers

You're assuming everyone would take your advice, which I doubt. I don't think anyone is talking about an outright ban in anything but the most extreme circumstances, which can and does already happen now. This doesn't have to be an all or none proposition. I think what the database advocates are talking about is more like a forum where opinions about risky behavior could be posted, much the way some DZO's share opinions now via phone or e-mail. I personally don't think we have to go that far, but the concept of some sort of a more automatic way to communicate about unsafe people does have merit. I also disagree that it would bring undue liability to the people who post their opinions. They are, after all, just opinions. That's not exactly slander. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Back in "the day", before collapsable pilot chutes, we used to put an over-sized grommet on our d-bag so it would slide down the bridle and collapse the slider. It worked well, but the heavy bag hanging on the end of the bridle would twirl like a prop. The fix was easy. We used heavy salt water fishing swivels to connect the bridle to the canopy so the bridle wouldn't twist up. http://www.tackledirect.com/samblacbalbe.html Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If I, as a DZO, thought the guy was going to sue me for my opinion of his performance or attitude, its really simple....YOU, my son, are no longer welcome here. go somewhere else. Two birds, one stone. -No idiocy at my DZ -No lawsuit Funny how Pops has a way of simplifying things. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Agreed, Bill. However, I feel I have the right to refute statements when they are incorrect and pointed at me. I'm sure you would demand the same if misstatements were being made about you. But back on point, if local enforcement of common sense and open communication between DZ's were employed a bit better, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation. You can't regulate stupidity, but you sure can ground it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Interesting, that's one of the points "topdocker" tried to make in post #160, and a couple of people jumped all over him. Maybe this is a good point. I think it is. If you're referring to me, get your facts straight. I didn't "jump all over him", nor did I even debate his position on it. In fact I pointed out in my reply to him specifically that I did not take the same position as the person who was advocating the database idea. I "jumped all over him" for his ludicrous statement claiming that monitoring idiotic behavior on the DZ doesn't happen and wouldn't be effective if it did happen. Those statements were blatantly false and I called him on it. But I'll give you a pass on this one. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Thank you for being a rat. You may have saved the guy's life. So peer monitoring of a would-be canopy crasher seems to have worked just fine here. I hope topdocker (a USPA Director) reads your post. He seems to think this tactic can't work. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

No it isn't the safest thing to do because you don't have the foundation of skills built to do it safely, regardless of conditions. Wisdom from the old school. Go figure. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Events forum? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Dave, I can only hope Nooberdude actually listens to you. I doubt it, but I hope. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Nope. Many canopies my ass - ANY canopy. I can - and have on numerous occasions - landed my horribly worn out Velo loaded 2.1:1 doing a braking/flaring 180 degree turn from less than 300 feet with a tip-toe landing. Additionally, I routine land it straight in at no more than full flight when traffic requires it. The only thing speed does is change geometry. There is no reason whatsoever to make a canopy fly faster than full flight if the motivation is a soft landing. The misinformation here is astounding. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

For shit sake, don't encourage this guy by taking his silly ass seriously. This clown is either a troll (read the first sentence of his post), or a crash in progress. posting PA's does nothing to answer the question That wasn't a PA, and his question shouldn't even be answered since it will only serve to encourage his idiotic behavior. If it makes your wet-noodle bowels feel better, let me speak your lingo... "My goodness Mr. Helper, maybe we shouldn't encourage a jumper who may be putting himself in great danger of serious bodily harm or even death by lending advisory support to his possibly insufficient skills and desire to progress more quickly than might be prudent. It is possible - sir - that this otherwise highly intelligent human being may actually be making a rare mistake by attempting to learn the art of performance canopy flight before he is prepared and properly educated for it." Some of us are sick of people candy-coating shit while dumbasses continue to pound their asses into the dirt. A bit of reality might (although Johnny Swoopalicious has given us no reason to believe so) make him think twice about his fuckupiness. Some people just need a dose of reality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEbzM2FUP9s Now go finish your Chablis and go to bed. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

With a competent pilot under a modern canopy you can get comfortable flares starting at half brakes. More speed means a given control deflection will have a more significant effect but there's nothing stopping your from applying more toggle faster when you're starting with less air speed. [QUOTE] Again standard left hand turns on final and conservative front riser turns. My question, does this help or hinder my ability to deal with adverse conditions? [/QUOTE] Hinder. If you screw up things will be happening faster and you'll have a lot more kinetic energy to break things. Funny thing about kinetic energy. It's there even when you don't know what to do with it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Thanks for the advice, Chief. The last thing I was going to do was encourage him. I was going to wait for his answer and then present some information to him. If, as I suspect, he is making his "conservative 90" at 200-300' on a lightly loaded Triathlon, then his canopy has probably gone through several flight cycles and any effect on landing is just in his head. If he is hooking it low enough to have an effect, then I was going to tell him that he is effectively doing an HP landing and that he needs to stop doing it immediately and start talking to instructors before experimenting. It seems that the technique of talking to someone before explaining the reality of the situation is not a skill you have developed yet. Instead you seem to prefer the "you're an idiot looking for a place to die" approach. You have quite a bit to learn about effectively influencing others. Actually I came to my conclusion after watching his posts carefully. This is another guy who is either trolling - after all, he keeps asking his questions here because his "instructors are too busy" - or he's not a troll and asks questions here because he knows what those "busy" instructors would say and he doesn't want to hear the answers. If dude-cicle is for real, my bigger and more important question is who are the DZO, S&TA, DZ Manager, and Chief Instructor that are allowing his dangerous behavior? Have they already written him off as another "won't take advice" type like the guy that bought the pond just last week at the Nationals??? As for effectively influencing others, I have been doing just that for years. Ask around and I think that's the opinion you will hear most. Thousands of safe students-turned safe skydivers over more than 2 decades can't be wrong. And quite frankly, I and others here have had it up to our old arthritic asses with people that poo-poo advice after asking for it. That shit is getting old, so maybe a harsher tone is in order for them. Don't mistake a bit of direct and descriptive talk with a failure to be effective. I save this type of talk for the forums. It drives the point home and spurs thought - exactly what these forums are for. I believe a thicker skin makes for a more open-minded - and therefore safer - skydiver. Just because you take a softer approach doesn't make it any more effective at the end of our accident-ridden days. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

For shit sake, don't encourage this guy by taking his silly ass seriously. This clown is either a troll (read the first sentence of his post), or a crash in progress. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Skippy, you are headed for the incidents forum. There is no such thing as a "conservative front riser turn". A front riser turn of any kind is by definition NOT conservative. Your lack of understanding is epic and your continued experimentation during the most dangerous portion of your skydiving career is about to catch up with you. Beyond that, you are horribly uneducated on what makes your canopy do what it does, and that will get you hurt, probably sooner than later. Have you attended any canopy training courses? Probably not or you would know your questions aren't connected to the science of flight. Rather than experiment on your own and end up in the hospital or the big ol' data pile that is our canopy fuck-up fatality drawer, I suggest you stay your grasshopper ass on straight in approaches and go get some training. You can blow all the wannabe intelligent questions up our asses that you want, but sounding like a brainiac conservative to yourself doesn't make you a bit safer than anyone else that overloads their barely-basic skill set. Or just do what you want. You'll be yet another great example for the noobs that actually listen to advice. BTW, does your DZO not care that he has a noob doing stupid shit? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Possibly an oops on my part. I did a quick google search and there appeared to be a DZ operating at the Petaluma airport. Anyone know if there is? If it was a vidiot's lens, this is the right category. If not I'm sure the mods will kill it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/09/15/camera-lens-falls-from-sky-through-roof-of-petaluma-home/ Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

350 jumps and 1 year +/- in the sport and you're schooling a guy with thousands of jumps and shitpots of hardened experience? Take it home and give it a bone, my man. I believe in taking good advise no matter where it comes from, but you are (no PA intended) a joke. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

John, my wife jumps a Racer (circa 1998, no RSL) and she has been very satisfied with it. I really appreciate your contribution to this thread and I'm learning (yes, learning after 26 years in the sport) a lot from your's and Bill Booth's posts on this issue. Just out of curiosity.... The single-handle cutaway system works about as well as you guys can tweak it to. However, it sounds like a perfectly simultaneous release (whether all that important or not in context) is something that has eluded all you genius rig building guys. Have you thought about shifting the paradigm by developing a single-point chop? Speaking from a completely uneducated perspective, how about a system that uses a single cable extraction point to release both 3-rings. I can't really explain the design, but my thought is a system that uses a single point for the 3-ring activation on both sides rather than a single point handle configuration with dual cables. I know it sounds a bit looney, but you rig builder guys seem to have a vision that might just help the idea make sense. Thoughts? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I agree with your comments. Just a bit of advocacy for the devil on my part. In the context of this conversation, it seems the most bulletproof systems would be the Racer style dual RSL (two-out main canopy cocooning aside) and the Collins lanyard. Nitpicking a bit here, though. Would a sideways pull make any difference? You'll have to enlighten me on that one. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

No one said it's the answer to the canopy collision issue and no one said that it will cure any kind of blind spot issue either. It is one small detail among many that will - hopefully - contribute to solving it. As I have said in past posts, solving the collision issue is a matter of asking the right questions in post-accident investigations to get a full understanding of the causes, but no one seems to be interested in doing that. Mutual traffic identification communication may not solve the problem, but it is a step in the right direction. On a more interesting note, how do you figure the answer is just one of complacency (your words)? I don't know that there's any evidence that complacency is the sole root cause any of the collisions that are plaguing the sport. If, as you say, "we have all been taught the answer", why does the collision problem persist? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Agreed, but if the system was designed to release simultaneously, the chance of it happening that way is pretty much guaranteed to be better than if it's designed not to. Gotta admit, this a terrific learning discussion for everyone. At least everyone willing to discuss it without their pride getting in the way. You bring a lot of wise thoughts to the table, my man. Hey kids, listen to the discussion. It might just save your butt. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What about: 1. Full-face helmets (diminished hearing ability & diminished vocal volume) 2. Audibles (additional blockage to the ear and thus further diminished hearing) 3. fast canopies (greater wind noise) 4. hearing impairments (like us old guys) 5. directional identification problems (see numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4) Unfortunately hearing is the most adversely affected of the human senses by the skydiving environment and our truly amazing equipment. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You are very correct on that, Bill. On another note, Your story actually brings the conversation full circle. If the risers had released at the same moment, the person you speak of would not have been in that situation in the first place. Maybe designing the cutaway system to release the RSL-equipped riser first (which I still argue doesn't make a hill of beans difference if the cutaway is performed properly) isn't such a good idea after all. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Some people never stop. Using your logic, we shouldn't even look for traffic because we might turn toward it by accident. Give it a rest, already. If you don't want to confirm visual identification of traffic with a simple mutual leg wave, don't. It seems to work nicely for those who do. Geez brother, have a drink. Oh no WAIT - DON'T! You might spill it - or worse, you might drop the glass and it might break, and you might fall on the glass and cut a major artery. And the ambulance might have a wreck on the way to help you and kill a family in a car taking their new litter of adopted kittens home. Geez. No, Chuck, I don't really care that much, just having a discussion. That is what this area is for, if I recall correctly. We call it "learning." Maybe, someone will convince me of the error of my ways, or I will convince them of my wisdom. Either way, we speak respectfully of each other and appreciate each other's viewpoint. And those lurking can learn the validity of both sides, and form their own opinion. And don't talk about spilling my drink, that is a PA! top Never confuse opinions with wisdom. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX