fly67

I think it's 56 button presses . Actually I generally turn it off to save the battery, but they couldn't have made it more un-user-friendly to simply switch it off (yes you don't want it to accidentally turn off).

Find out anything yet?

I got a Viso II after my AFF since I had a couple mis-reads of the analog ones during AFF. I didn't want to chance that with my life so I went digital. No problems since. It has simple logging capability which has been great to keep my jump numbers straight. The only possible issue is that it's hard to read at low viewing angles (say during tracking).

I tried a bunch of other helmets but none really fit my head. The G2 (small) fits well (if a little tight), so I have no worries about it falling off. Two audible slots are great since I use two. When I need one, my next helmet will probably be a G3. Glad I have a full face since it already saved me from a possible broken nose from a jump in which a friend's foot/shoe slammed into the visor. The original visor (from about a year ago) developed crackling. I asked Cookie for a replacement (sent a pic) and they sent one no questions asked. Nice product...

I like this little guy. Cheaper than L&B Optima II, strong metal case, and just enough functionality (always on, 3 FF alarms, 3 canopy alarms, plus a few other things I don't use). I have two NeoXs's in my helmet so I don't have to worry about one failing. After a year I haven't had to change the battery on either. Like!

And that is the crux of the matter.

Shows how little I know . But I hope you get the point, at least at airports with lots of traffic (and lot's of passengers) - they put in various rules and controls. Not that that is THE solution, just something to consider as part of a broad spectrum approach.

If we equated canopies to motorcycles, we'd have scooters going 20 mph with crotch rockets going 80 mph all on the same race course. Or another analogy, slow Cessnas and F-15s landing together. (And yes two of these slow Cessnas can also collide.) This seems to have come from the complex evolution of parachutes first being a way to drop to the ground, next evolving to become an actual flying wing, then eventually pushing the limits and performance of this wing. Combine this with the culture of "personal flying" and the freedom of skydiving, and we have no regulation of these types of canopies -- or ways of flying them. So we have "slipped through the cracks" somehow avoiding regulation and oversight that accompanies using vehicles that can go fast and can kill. To me (as a relatively new jumper) it seems somewhat insane that we have no well-established universal training and rules for flying in common airspace (not yet in landing pattern), for landing patterns, and for flying smaller/faster canopies. Would any airplane pilot be allowed to spiral down near the airport? Would the pilot try to see what the first plane did to decide what direction to land? Would multiple planes be coming down together with the pilot having to "keep his head on a swivel" to avoid a collision? Would we let a single engine Cessna pilot fly an F-15 just because he/she could afford it? (Yes I know parachute does not equal airplane and we are not limited to a runway.) But maybe (maybe) we can agree that the "causes" are a complex combination of: - Culture - Few established/enforced rules (NEVER do X, ALWAYS do Y or ELSE consequence Z) - Complex flying vehicles with a wide range of velocities and rapid ability to change direction - High density traffic with no "air traffic control" - Downsizing - Pushing beyond skill level - Lack of sufficient training - Lack of sufficient awareness - Blind spots (also no instrumentation) - Hard to see canopies - Others? (tired, hungover, high...) Why wouldn't we work on EACH ONE, bit by bit, whether through advocacy, training, self-restraint, rules, awareness, vigilance, ...?

Thanks for the nice words. And Wendy it looks like we're thinking along the same lines (you were first:). You say time is of the essence. That's true. But like so many human endeavors these days if there are possible issues with something we are doing (say a toxin that might cause birth defects or a high speed limit that seems to correlate with higher traffic fatalities), we have to first "prove" there is an issue at all, and then find the cause(s) through studies and analysis. Then there are debates on what is the right law or policy with groups fighting for each side. However, sometimes rules or laws can be enacted quickly when the threat is obvious and unacceptable and there is a probable identified cause. It might be the wrong decision or the right decision, but it is done quickly. So is this industry/sport/group of people willing to try enacting rules that are potentially unpopular if the cause or causes are not yet perfectly understood, studied, analyzed, debated and finally proven? I don't know. But you ask where to start, who will start? At a minimum has anyone (USPA?) correlated the incidents to DZ-specific data, experience, canopy size/speed, etc? Even if this is done, since the statistical sample is small it might not really reveal some of the underlying issues or causes. That's why video analysis along with "landing factors" as Wendy calls them could point out some glaring patterns of close calls or congestion. Just last weekend I saw a canopy collision close call. If this had been captured in the interest of transparency and the greater good, it could be analyzed along with all the landing factors. I'm sure in one weekend there are more close calls (or lack of proper separation) than people would like to admit. Can we learn if these are correlated with external factors (LZ, loads, canopy speed) or primarily internal factors ("uh, I wasn't looking and I think I cut that guy off") etc. I'm willing to talk with anyone on dz.com who might want to start outlining an approach to gathering data and perhaps getting support from the USPA and permission from DZ's and jumpers as needed. Perhaps if this can be done transparently as a "grass roots" effort, fellow skydivers will volunteer to fill out forms and volunteer info on close calls etc. Just throwing this out there...

Thanks for repeating yourself. I hadn't seen this.

So if D = Groundspeed * DTime as a good "1st-order equation", then we have a reasonable estimate of D from group centers. If a group tracks away from center and we know the average (or better max) tracking distance for 4-ways, 8-ways etc., then we can reverse engineer the added time. Thus if 4-ways track off 300 feet at most and the plane has ground speed 90 knots = 150 ft/s, then: - We should add 2 secs for one 4-way followed by a solo or 2-way (assuming 2-way tracks perpendicular to jump run) - We should add 4 secs for one 4-way following another. Is my logic correct here assuming we need separation of the "edges" of the group at pull time? Also, what is a good/safe number to assume for tracking distance from group centers (ignoring big ways)?

i do not agree with this. you do not need to lock onto your altimeter. you need to glance at it when you come out of a track and clear your airspace. check altitude and wave off/pull. right now you might not be jumping with many people. if i am on a three or four way and we leave on level i wont barrel roll, but if there is a single person i dont know the location of, i check. to me that is a much better use of the 5 sec you wasted looking at you altimeter. I'm only saying to lock on at this point since he doesn't yet have altitude awareness (blowing by pull altitude). This forces him to look at it rather than continuing to track for 5-10 more seconds and possibly pulling 1-2k low. Eventually he will be able to use an internal clock to track for x secs, quick look at alt, check airspace, and pull. Also if he's by himself or with one other person tracking off at 180 degrees, it's not as critical to look above, more critical to pull (I may be wrong though).

I went through periods of doubt and doing things wrong (pulling a little low (got stern warning), wrong landing pattern (got stern warning), flaring high, flaring low). It's all part of it. I feel for you that you can't get any momentum. If you have the commitment, time, and money, you could travel to a DZ with good weather and spend a week (or a 3-4 day weekend) getting current and getting coaching. I found it can be better to focus on one main thing at a time until it kind of clicks. Doesn't mean you've totally learned it, but if each jump has a main focus, you can gain better experience in each area. While being coached/watched doing tasks, it can be hard to focus on both the tasks and the altimeter. It's better to focus on the alti (every 5 secs) if you have trouble remembering (yeah, do a few jumps just watching altitude). If you start tracking at 1.5-2k above pull alt you should stop tracking in about 5 secs, check alt, and lock in with 1000-500 ft to go. Even if the track is only 3 secs, that's fine if it's just you (and one other). As a novice myself, I still do a lot of solos and try to time my track and then pull right at my target pull altitude. Remember that 3 secs of fooling around is 500 ft. So even waving off and reaching can eat up 500 ft. I try to throw the pilot chute at my pull altitude. For canopy practice, do dedicated hop-and-pops to practice flares and turns up high. Then try to set up a repeatable landing pattern. Try to have patience... it's a long road.

I agree, there should always be some "worry" or at least vigilance. In most areas of life the consequences of a mistake are not so grave. It might not count for much, but I'll throw in a newbie's experience about altimeter technology (and how it's corrupted my judgment). I trained on an Altimaster and did okay. I misread it a couple times in free fall near pull time, and I was a little uneasy at low altitudes because it didn't read that accurately (not that I made mistakes because of that). After I got my license, I got a Viso which was more accurate and easy to read (for me). I can time my pull to within 100-200 feet of my target altitude. Also, it's nice to look at the log and confirm I was open at so-and-so altitude and know the snivel etc. And for my landing pattern it's nice to know I'm at (or close to) 900, 600, 300 ft (confirming by eye of course). Soon after, I got an audible. I set up alerts at my landing pattern altitudes. I don't blindly turn when I hear a beep, and still mostly rely on the visual altimeter and gut feeling ("oh, I'm definitely high"). The audible and my Viso are usually within 20 ft of each other. Could I get by without all the digital technology? Sure. In fact I tend to land more accurately (and have more fun) by feeling it out than trying to hit my turn points exactly with 90 degree turns to hit my target. Also, on plane rides to altitude, I try to guess the altitude to train myself. I wouldn't yet rely on it only, but I'm working on it. I think most agree if there is a potential problem with using audibles, it's not the technology per se (yes it "could" fail), but more the users. Some fly cautiously and others fly more obliviously or aggressively. I think this is more of a risk than technology (but I haven't been in the sport hardly any amount of time:). Call me a chicken, but this is why I still land at the alternate LZ. Last weekend at the main LZ I saw a close call where one canopy cut in front of another on it's base. Neither was swooping and were both 55+ yo. The safety guy went out and talked to both of them.

Great explanation. I like equations (was going to post something similar). Simple vector algebra. If we ignore the canopy drift (assume WindAtOpening=0), the separation at opening is soley determined by ground speed. B = Groundspeed = Airspeed - UpperWinds So the actual separation distance D at time of opening is D = B * DTime (between exists) Thus: Groundspeed DTime (sec) => D (ft) ------------- ---------------------------- knots ft/sec 4 5 6 7 80 135 540 675 810 945 90 152 608 760 911 1063 100 169 675 844 1013 1181 Now if we add WindAtOpening: D = (Airspeed + WindAtOpening) * DTime I think this assumes that each group will be under canopy for about DTime and will be blown with the wind towards the other group, so this adds an extra safety margin of WindAtOpening*DTime distance, e.g 30 ft/s * 5 = 150 ft. Am I getting this right? This doesn't seem to take into account variations in opening altitude (say 3000 vs 2000). If so, wouldn't a higher opening group be under canopy longer, perhaps 5-6 secs and be closer to the next lower opening group? Just trying to understand some of the other variables.

Hi... The reason I brought it up at all is that Bill said "Wait at least 7 seconds." I realize the 4 sec separation was probably "reasonable" (I was trying to own up to my mistake). So again, I apologize for a thoughtless off-the-cuff comment. Also, I double-checked the posted min separation time today and I had it wrong. It is 4-5 seconds and more for groups and slower ground speed. If I do the math (ground speed): 4 secs @ 80 knots = 540 ft 7 secs @ 80 knots = 945 ft 4 secs @ 100 knots = 676 ft 7 secs @ 100 knots = 1183 ft What separation "sufficient" or better, safe? (I understand I don't have to take anyone's advice, just curious).

Did you notice that this is based on ground speeds being above a certain level, with additional time required for slower airspeed ground speed? Hi, I didn't mean to take it out of context. Skydive AZ's normally posted min exit time is 5-7 secs if ground speed > 80 knots (more added for less speed and between groups). I believe the ground speed was 100 knots, so 4 secs may be accounting for the 25% extra speed. I just haven't seen that exit time ever posted and it concerned me a bit (even if it is somehow reasonable) and I took it out on the DZ operators.

Hi Bill, I guess I wasn't clear that it's a countdown between exits, not getting into the door. I understand the concern about looking at a clock rather than out. I would hope that people could use it to set cadence and timing and not stare at it, e.g. "it's at 3 or 4 so I'm getting in the door" then doing normal procedures such that it's around 7 secs. Or at simplest a blinking light at 1 per sec to help count cadence. Could be used or not used. Not trying to over technologize or distract... just faciliate some consistency if this is desired.

No, it's not "hard to count aloud." And perhaps you have perfect 1-second interval exit counts. But not everyone count seconds well, nor does everyone count to the same number. One person's 8-count may be 4 secs. Another may only count to 4 or 5, and even if they count seconds well, this is probably too little time. With a clock or timer or distance meter, it's not subjective.

Try telling this to Skydive AZ. They recently posted 4 secs between solos, 4-6 for small groups. Why make two runs when you can get everyone out in one?? Regardless of these "optimistic" exit times, it would be relatively simple to provide a clock, timer, or indicator to better time exits: - Simple: Install a large digital clock with seconds - Countdown timer: Install a large digital countdown timer or indicator light. The next group pushes button when previous group exits. Could be defaulted to 7 seconds (or more depending on uppers) as the minimum exit time. For larger groups simply count out more seconds as needed. - Ground distance display: Install a ground distance display tied to GPS (or an indicator light based on a preset distance, say 1000ft). The next group pushes the button and jumps when the display shows prescribed separation distance (or indicator light). - Better calculations... taking into account uppers, etc. The technology exists for this (although the specific displays might not). I just don't know if the DZ would really want people to count 7-10 secs.

That's what I do, but people can still fly across those LZs or your pattern to get to whichever LZ they want (normally the main).

Need to search better ;) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=692 I like mine.

Good question. Skydive AZ doesn't have hard rules for traffic that might need to cross to get to another landing area etc. So the main thing is diligence: - Keep your head on a swivel - Create vertical separation (more important than horizontal separation, lower canopy has right of way) - Be courteous (yield, slow, speed up when needed) - Be predictable (don't sashay, don't brake suddenly, don't cut people off) - Be wary (assume someone might cut you off or not see you) - Don't get fixated on a goal or target - Don't just follow the leader (too closely or blindly) - Know the landing pattern conventions and no fly zones - Have options and be willing to land off/out - Signal if needed (moving legs, yelling) That's my recollection, may not be complete, but useful in any scenario.

Just did a canopy course with Axis Flight School (Brianne and Niklas). Their content and approach was great, and not just focused on flying, but total awareness of what's going on, flying safely, being predictable, not just following the leader, creating vertical separation, giving yourself options. According to their experience most skydivers (canopy pilots) don't learn a lot of basics, nor courtesy in the sky. Blind goal orientation, cutting people off, landing at the same time seems to be common. They provided answers to my question and more... Now if I could just delete this thread.

There are a lot of good ideas here. I'm new to the sport, but want to be safe and want to be safe to those around me. I'm a scientist so as Chuck said, yes we need data, but we also need honesty and transparency, intelligence and common sense, and we need to acknowledge that (like driving a car), there is inherent risk in this sport and we can't control what others do. Like all human endeavors, things tend to get more complex. Now it's not a bunch or round unsteerable canopies dropping down. It's a mix of low, medium, and high performance canopies. It's a mix of experience levels and awareness. It's a mix of conservative and aggressive attitudes. All potentially converging in a small area. Paradoxically at the same time, there is a strong culture of safety regarding the planes, jump order and exit times, and the equipment. Everyone wants to look out for each other in these areas. But for some reason, when it comes to getting back on the ground, the safety consciousness isn't as strong. The adrenaline kicks in. We might not see everything around us. It takes concentration and skill. So if the complexity is higher with many more variables and variations occurring in the air, a good approach is to first understand the variables by doing EXPERIMENTS. We don't necessarily need canopy collision incident data. Here are some possible variables (not complete but an example): Geographic: - LZ length/width, location, obstacles - Landing off options Rules/Enforcement - Landing patterns, hp approaches, etc. Environmental: - Wind speed, direction, variability Individual: - Landing pattern and approach (actual vs. suggested vs. enforced) - Canopy speed - Experience level, training, attitude (e.g. conservative vs adrenaline junky...) Group: - Small vs. large loads - Type/mix of jumpers (tandem, free, belly...) Other: - Canopy color One experiment could be to video an LZ over multiple days and conditions and see if there are patterns or problems that emerge, potentially as a function of any of the variables above (perhaps gathered via anonymous interviews or jumpers volunteering info). The idea isn't to single out offenders but learn from the data. Another approach could be to experiment with more separation and enforcement of distinct disciplines... swoopers in a separate area or on a separate jump run or both. See how it works, analyze the data. The part that this won't "fix" is human error. But if we can find out where the risk can be reduced, then we've at least improved the odds for everyone.