Divalent

Yah! Finally got that monkey off your back. (Well, at least one of them. 4 more levels and you get rid of the other one!*) [* no disrespect intented to anyone who might think they are a monkey on a student's back.]

and a "welcome to the sport" from me, too. I finished AFF last month. I suspect you will get all the answers to your questions when you prepare with your instructor immediately before your first jump. For all my AFF jumps, they pulled out an aerial photo of the DZ area and gave me an estimate of approximately what I'd be over once under canopy (based on wind conditions at the time), what the landing pattern would be at that time, and then told a general area I was to move to before playing with the canopy. You also have a radio and your instructors will be giving you directions on what to do once you reach the altitude for entering the landing pattern. Just remember to arch. And if you ever find yourself uncertain of what to do next, arch while you figure it out. Oh, and pull when you are supposed to (you really can't forget to pull; you might as well just do a tandem if you don't want to pull). And be altitude aware (while arching). And don't forget to pull. (Arch while you pull. Arching is always good. It is never a bad thing to do.) Good luck. Oh, and that fear you have at the door? Every jump it gets less and less. By jump 6 it will be gone (unless you never arched on the first 5; or never pulled; then you still might have a bit of it).

I don't really remember exactly (because the conversation moved quickly) but I think it was mostly a change in initial arm position and then an emphasis on how to execute the arm movement. I find them fun to do because if you time your re-arch just right (and I did), the flip and restability become one smooth graceful movement. (I almost felt like I cheated on that part of the test since the if you execute it just right, it's not really "instability". I've since done them with my arms extended out, and that works but also gives you a sense of instability.)

FWIW, when my instructor was telling me about how to do the back flip, another instructor popped his head up and said his technique was way better (in a friendly way, no issues of instructor clashing): extend arms straight out above your head (parallel to each other), bring your knees up in front of you as you simultaneously swing your arms down to your legs (as if you were about to lower them onto the shoulders of someone facing you, with palms down, kind of pressing against the wind). Quoting from my log book: "perfect back flip followed by instant stability". (My first solo I did 3 more; they are fun to do.) But just cause it worked for me doesn't mean it will work for you, so if you think this way might work, run it by your instructor. (I'll just skip right over the parts of my log book that refer to my landings (among other sections): it's sufficient to note that I perfected the butt slide in AFF ) BTW, level 6 was also the jump for me where I had no discernable exit fear. Like you, I think its the combination of confidence in my ability to get stable regardless of what is happening at the moment coupled with confidence that I could remain altitude aware and deploy my own main. [I liked all my instructors, but I was happy to get to the point where I didn't *have* to jump with them.]

Here's a link to a video of this swoop (so you can see exactly what happened next). http://www.vimeo.com/14833103 It's at about the 5 minute mark. The swooping section starts at about 3:24. Some wicked wipeouts.

I liked this one: "Copy and paste this if you know someone or have heard of someone who knows someone. If you don't know anyone, or even if you've heard of someone who doesn't know anyone, then still copy this. It's important to spread the message. Oh and the hearts * * *; For the love of GOD, don't forget the hearts * * *" (where * = little heart symbols. Can't make them apprear on this board)

(I orginally posted in the Incident Thread, but moved it here because its general in nature.) Following up on your suggestion to communicate with the pilot: At what point would asking the pilot become acceptable for an ordinary jumper on the plane? Particularly where the altitude is clearly ok, and where the pilot may be focused exclusively on diagnosing the situation. I'm not suggesting that jumpers should immediately get in his face and become a distraction right off the bat, but after a reasonable enough time has passed where he should have had enough time to respond to the immediate control issues plus additional time for an opportunity to have going through at a few cycles of diagnosing the situation. I'm thinking something along the lines of "Hey, you want us to get out and lighten the load?" So I'm interested in thoughts about doing this, and when, and how.

(Not to NovaTTT in particular) There were indications in the original report of this incident that raised questions about the maintanence of this rig. IIRC, the loop was not siliconized, there was the suggestion that the packing log was (or would be) altered, and the rigger may have been refusing to cooperate with those investigating.

As a noob who hasn't had to cut away yet (but did have to use a reserve long ago), I do wonder a bit what you are looking for. If you search YouTube for actual cutaways, they come in many different varieties from relatively gentle defects where they are falling just a bit too fast (with lots of time/altitude to think, plan, and react), to rapidly spinning twisted diving beasts after a low opening where they are on their back with G forces threatening to cause a blackout. If you want the ones that would create the most panic and challenge your abilities and training, I suspect you'd have to create quite a risk to get into that position. So what sort of cutaway scenario are you looking for?

In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUDbXKl2_U) the person who had to do a cutaway claims (in the comments) that the main canopy was facing (and flying) backwards. He also said that he jumped that rig several times that day prior to this incident. (Things occur about about 1:30 into the video: look for the red canopy below the camera guy) I'm trying to work out in my mind how that is possible. I.e., if on prior jumps it was fine and the risers were never disconnected and reattached, how could a pack job lead to what was claimed? Seems like a step thru (walk thru?) would just give you a 360 degree twist in both sets of risers, with the canopy still facing forward. (BTW, you can't really see the canopy orientation in the video because it was filmed by another person from above, although it does show the full cutaway and reserved deploy. And the camera guy has a close call with the cutaway main.)

AFAIK, there isn't a tunnel within 500 miles of where I'm training, so it's not really an option I've thought about. I suppose it would be helpful to familiarize someone, in advance, of what the forces of the winds will be like when you do a real jump. Right now I'm trying to learn things like turning with my legs, and different positions to fall faster and slower, and I can see that a tunnel would be a time-efficient way to practice those skills. But, without a tunnel, I'm forced settle for the next best thing: I use skydives as a tunnel simulator.

Congratulations to a fellow member of the AFF class of 2011!

Could this also mean that AADs might not detect your decelleration for some time? That is, your deploying main is slowing you down, but as your body is being stood up, pressure might be rising near your back faster than just that due to change in altitude. If so, it seems like it might have the effect of momentarily thinking you are falling at a faster rate than you really are.

Let's be perfectly clear, there's no way you understand the risk. ... I guess I wasn't clear. My statement about understanding the risk was with respect to the specific scenario that Popsjumper raised about getting more 2-outs. I thought the context was plainly evident, as it followed a paragraph specifically addressing that scenario, and the additional words (indeed, the whole paragraph) that followed the fragment of the sentence you quoted immediately dealt specifically and solely with that scenario. (I apologize for confusing you.). Anyway, I recognize the danger of unintended consequences in any change, whenever made, but that should be a principle that councils caution, not inaction. Since I'm new to the sport, I'd be the last guy to speculate what future techniques, skills, equipment, or disciplines might arise that would lead to new risks with the current generation of AADs. But even if I was prescient enough to know what was coming, the future is not yet here, and as an initial go at considering the issue, vague speculative future possibilities seem less urgent to consider than identifying existing dangers based on what skydivers do today. Which is what I’m trying to understand: what is it that jumpers do today that would increase the risks (beyond the benefits) by giving people to option to raise the trigger altitude 500 ft or so. Maybe I’m missing something obvious, or I am overweighing the benefits. Again, the incident this thread is discussing, like some others, might have had a different outcome if the AAD fired higher. Or, perhaps I am underweighing the downsides: I think this is the message I'm getting back from people. If so, I am all ears. I’m here to learn. Help me see what I'm missing.

Okay, I'm willing to learn, but I don't think these two scenarios would sway me. I do think everyone who uses an AAD should both act as if it will fail (so don't rely on it) and act as if it will NOT fail (so expect it to do what it was designed to do), and part of that planning requires knowing the altitude it is going to fire at, and doing things to avoid problems at that altitude. So although I do see you are more likely to get an AAD activation with a snivel following a low main deploy from some fixed altitude, if that happens, you didn't follow your plan. (And had you waited 2.5 seconds longer to deploy your main, then you get a 2-out at 750 ft with the current AADs. Question: if you had a 2-out because you deployed X seconds later (or 500 ft lower) than you planned, would you rather be at 1000 ft or 550 ft?) Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure I understand the risk, but it seems to me the way to avoiding a 2-out with an AAD is the same regardless of the AAD fire altitude: deploy your main well above that level. It would be foolish to rise your AAD level 450ft and not factor that into your planning. And the failure to trigger the AAD due to subthreshold descent rate just means that an AAD (regardless of trigger level) isn't going to do anything to save you. However, although the AAD won't help you, the trigger level might! Question: if you notice that you were falling at 60mph under a partial mal 1750 ft below the altitude where you deployed your main, would you rather be at 1250 ft or 750ft?

...You bastardize that feature when you use it for every Tom, Dick or Harry who thinks they know better and want to alter the AGL firing altitude. In these matters, you create a standard, and build the system around it. Products can be designed to work with that standard, and skydives can be planned around that standard, and everyone is on it. Okay, so I'm a student, so it is very possible I'm missing something here, but as far as I can tell, the only possible harm I could cause to someone else by programing a different activation altitude is if I lend my gear to someone else, and I don't inform him of that fact, who then pushes the limit and winds up with a 2-out. Is that right? Because it seems to me that otherwise my choice (if I were so to choose) to have it fire at, say, 1200 ft rather than 750 (or 850, depending on the brand), affects no one. I mean, if I'm aware that I'm at 1200 and hadn't yet pulled, I hope I would be pulling it myself at that point; so it's not like anyone could ever complain I created a danger for them by pulling then, rather than later. The SIM for group jumps expresses breakoff points relative to the altitude of the person with the highest pull level, so as long at that is that is adhered to, there shouldn't be a problem. In this incident, (possibly fired when unstable resulting in an unusually slow opening) a higher fire altitude might have made a difference.

Wait, wouldn't *both* have to fail to get total failure? If I've correctly envisioned what he's suggesting, if the first fires but doesn't cleanly cut the loop, it would still open if the second one cleanly cut it. (Obviously, the fire order would have to be correct: second one would have be located closer to the pin than the first.)

following up on my own post about the silicon, I hunted down the Argus Users manual (not the installation manual referenced before), and it notes that it is important for the silicon to be on the loop where it passes through the grommets, implying that the purpose is to ensure that the loop material slides easily at that point. It doesn't otherwise mention the silicon, suggesting that the silicon is not something that is used to enhance the ability of the cutter to cut the loop material. If that is the case, then the fact that the loop apparently did not have silicon on it would not be a contributing factor in the failure to cut it cleanly in this incident.

From the Argus installation manual: "Standard and running loops must be impregnated with silicone on the first 2.5 to 4 cm. ... The entire reserve loop should be impregnated with silicone except for 1cm above the disc" and (in a larger font, all caps, centered prominently on the page): "LOOP MATERIAL, SILICONIZING AND LOOP LENGTH ARE IMPORTANT TO ASSURE A CLEAN CUT." From the incident report: "Loop seemed to be dry, lacking in the recommended treatment of silicon by the manufacturer." and "Reserve seems to have been packed in concordance with the manufacturers recommendations except for the absence of silicon on the closing loop." Question: If the Manufacturer requires silicon on the loop, and the rigger fails to put the silicon on it, and the cutter fails to cut cleanly, is that a product operation defect or a rigging defect? I don't know the answer; it seems to me it depends on whether the lack a silicon is a minor thing, not really necessary (or shouldn't be necessary) for the proper functioning of the unit, or whether it is an important thing. But it does appear (particularly because one excerpt above was in a large font and all caps) that the manufacturer went out of their way to stress that this was important to get a clean cut. And here we appear to have an incident where silicon may not have been used, and there was not a clean cut. (And the lack of willingness of the rigger to be forthcoming with their records for this rig does seem to raise questions in this context). (And if the manufacturer say "you must do 'X'" is it fair to call that a "recommendation", or would be be more accurate to call that a "requirement".)

Perhaps you overlooked this thread? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4059341

Question for those more knowledgeable about AADs: Are either of the two passages below serious enough for concern? These are quotes from the incident report at the PIA site (http://www.pia.com/piapubs/ServiceBulletins/TEXASUSA211.pdf): "Latest reserve repack date and details: unknown, multiple pack cards in rig, rigger unwilling to respond with copy of logbook page and date. No in-date pack card found in rig (believe fabrication of pack card and logbook entry may be attempted after comments made by jumper)" and "Loop seemed to be dry, lacking in the recommended treatment of silicon by the manufacturer." A possible implication is that the reserve may not have been serviced within 180 days, so there might have been maintanance issues involved. What is the purpose of the silicon? (to keep the cutter blade from oxidizing? To keep moisture from wicking down to the cutter through the loop material? To make the loop material easier to cut?)

WoooHooo! An excellent example! They forgot their training....which yes, includes thinking. And here's an actual example deploying a main very low when faced with no time to think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiGdqPfztsc. If he was falling 100 ft to the north, I suspect he would have hit that ridge, and way too fast. A reserve pull instead at the same instant might have been better, but I do wonder if he could have done it: some time would have been consumed deciding, and I bet his muscle memory deploying his main was faster than going for his less familiar reserve.

More specifically, to make a link clicky, type a "[", then "url", then "]" in front of the link (so, all 5 characters without any spaces or quote marks) and then a "[", then "/url", then a "]" immediately after the link (with no spaces or other characters between these things and the link text). I'd type it exactly as it should be, but then you wouldn't see it. But I'll try to use the "{}" in place of the "[]" to see if it will show: {url}http://www.dropzone.com{/url} ETA: If you click on "Quote" on mjosparky's post where he made your link clicky, the quoted material will show the right format.

An interesting question that I'd like to hear the answer to, to help me understand what I should be looking for when i check my gear. It's hard to tell for sure, but the "smooth straight" portion does seem to have an ever so slight curvature to it (but not very much), but most of the "bentness" occurs at the point where this segment meets the thicker portion where it connects to the cable.

Totally 100% agree!. Except for "Raising Arizona", where I thought he was fantastic. (so, 99.9% agree.) But then, I think his character in that movie was totally suited to his real personality and acting persona.