peek

I guess enough people have responded now, so it's time to answer the question. The answer is: "We let go of each other and flew our individual main canopies to landing." Congratulations for figuring it out go to mccordia, riggerrob, and rigging65 (I can't tell if rigging65 really knew, but the "turn it into a downplane" answer was a good one.) Special commendations to lug and mr2mk1g for asking questions about the picture before responding. And that damned sducoach just can't keep a secret about anything! This was an exercise in seeing how many people commented without really knowing everything about a subject, (which has been going on a lot in these forums.) I played it rather tricky on you, I admit, especially including "avoid this if you can" in the title. The Sharpchuter main is all white and the pilot chute is often camera-shy. Thanks to Tammy R. for the picture.

Interesting parachute configuration, avoid this if you can. Does everyone know what they would do in this situation?

I tried it once on an old canopy I was about to give up on, and all it did was increase the pack volume and make it greasy feeling. It did not help the flight performance that I could tell. I have heard that there is a special product made for this which work to some degree, but I assume anything is going to increase the pack volume.

AggieDave wrote (about the USPA A License Profiency Cards): "No, either card, you still get your A. The "small" card is 100% fucking worthless. Its for DZs that don't use the ISP and basically have their own student program, they can pencil-whip the card at the end of the program and the student gets their A. It doesn't have all the benefits of the new ISP integrated onto the card and if the student is using it, the student is pretty lost as to all the details they need to accomplish (like riser turns, braked approaches, swooping to formations in freefall, etc)." Dave, I am extremely disappointed in your response. I will assume you wrote this in a hurry. Most drop zones do not use the USPA ISP. The quality of training depends mostly on the drop zone and its attitude toward student instruction, not on USPA documentation. (Actually, a student's logbook is the most important document of all.) I think that since this thread is fairly new, that you will soon see a number of responses from others that feel the same way.

Skybrat68: What is the obvious way to stow the excess line? ... I find the suggestion in PD's report in reference to using a rubber band pretty handy. G.P. Rubber bands is an obvious and very good way. Velcro is another. (The excuse that Velcro damages lines is not valid, but that is another topic, so standby....) What I'm trying to do is to get people to think and use common sense, which dictates that excess steering line be stowed.

OK, I was being too obtuse. Sometimes I do that to try to get people to think and to get opinions, but I guess when people have a limited time to read things on dz.com, they think I am speaking specifically. Here it is in a more specific comment. It bothered me as soon as I saw that people were not stowing their excess brake line. This started happening when HP canopies got popular because the excess was not as long as on MP canopies. I knew something was going to happen to someone eventually. I told scores of people that it wasn't a good idea. (And I think it is obvious to most people that it is a snag hazard.) They said, "Oh, it will be alright.", and laughed. Then, when some problems started showing up, people started reconsidering, and started stowing it in the riser/link area. Again I started saying "Why not just stow it securely in something designed for that purpose?". It seemed like people did not want to do the obvious, and that is to stow it like it was stowed back when ram-air canopies were developed. There are a number of ways to do this, but these are not "new" ways, and I think that many people think that anything not developed recently is not "cool", no matter how effective. To comment on Skybrat68's comment about "research is being done now..". It need not be done. It was done a long time ago.

The "Cool Factor" and Safety I don't know who originated this expression, but it seems to be related a lot to skydiving now. I don't know how many times I have seen skydivers do things that are _very obviously_ less safe than an alternative because they think it is not "cool" or not stylish to do the former. For example: I find it disturbing that Performance Designs even needs to issue: "Control Systems Malfunctions Information Sheet", which is listed on this web site's main page. Who determined that it was "cool" to put the excess steering line in the riser/link area? Why would anyone want to do this? Since there were ram-air canopies there have been methods to store excess steering line! (Ok, so you are convined Velcro is "evil"? Then devise another method.) I remember when it was "cool" to just leave the excess steering line hanging, but now since someone has died I guess some people are re-thinking this. Well, duh! One very experienced jumper I know showed me on the ground how the riser cover of his rig pulled out the excess steering line on his canopy. He _showed me this_. It caused a spinning canopy a number of times, yet he did nothing to correct the problem. He waited until the riser manufacturer came up with the next generation "cool" riser and bought it. WTF? And this is a smart guy and a guy that can sew, and install something to correct the problem. It's kind of crazy, I tell people to fix something that I see _obviously_ "less safe" (than an alternative) and they ignore me. Is it an age thing? Am I just totally without "cool"? I pretty much predicted (at least to myself, because no one else would listen) that someone would eventually be hurt or die because of steering line left unstowed. What do we need to do to get people to listen? Is the desire to be "cool" so incredibly powerful that it is worth ignoring _obvious_ dangers? Or are those dangers not obvious? If they are not, doesn't having an experienced jumper telling you that these are true dangers mean anything? Or do you only take advice from a "cool" source?

PD's new canopy ad. "Are you cut out for Katana?" I was wondering what message you all think this ad sends.

Re: [peek] Commonly misused words I knew I was in for it when I posted this list, and I knew you all would find something I did wrong. But no guts, no glory, right? Keep them coming. I have made some corrections and additions already. My definitions are deliberately short, hence the "cow" rather than the full explanation of the bovine sex organ issue, etc. When I have time I will add as many of your suggestions as I can. If you all keep it up we might rival some of the lists that I used to put together mine. Don't you guys skydive on weekends?

Of course there is an error, I did it in a hurry! I knew you guys were not going to let me get away with anything.

Commonly misused words in dropzone.com forums and rec.skydiving. I've been meaning to do this for a long time, and finally did. I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine. I created a page where I can point skydivers to when they make ridiculous mistakes misusing and misspelling words, especially those related to their skydiving posts. Many of these I have seen. Feel free to point people there if they deserve it! And let me know if you find others. http://www.freefall.com/peek/misused.html

Jim, I know Tandem students can do things. I am very curious about what exactly you trained him to do on that jump as far as exit and manuvers. Body position during exit? Practice pulls?. Turns?, Tracking body position?, Pull sequence? (And Bill, dammit, you hijacked the thread! I know AFF students can track under you, but I thought we were talking about Tandem.)

The additional danger I consider being more chance of a reserve ride, partially because I am not doing the packing. (Those that do their own have excellent malfunction rates.) I have always been dismayed when I hear someone use the expression "Passenger trying to kill you, etc." I suppose if the person is trained only to be a passive, joy-riding piece of cargo, and has not been well trained on what to expect, that when they feel those totally unexplained sensations and feelings, that they might do something that makes your jump more dangerous. But.... If things are explained to them, and they are treated with respect, I find that they are wonderful jump companions. I am totally amazed sometimes the things that I can teach my students, all because I take the time to make them feel comfortable and confident in themselves. The extra weight answer is: If your student is in a good body position, their weight is an asset! (Just like the ol' belly-wart days.) Now, to answer your first question? The hardest thing about doing Tandems is getting the DZO and other lazier Tandem Instructors to cooperate, and let you train your students and make them safer, and allow them to learn more.

We have something on our web site just for students like him needing project help: Park College Parachute Research Group pcprg.com, the "Student" area.

The October 2003 Readers Digest has a story about Robert "Bobo" Bonadies called "Falling". It is written in typical RD style of course, but it's a fair tribute and not negative about skydiving. In case you are curious, the Readers Digest can be found at the checkout of most supermarkets among many other places. If the line is long you might be able to at least skim it.

In general I think the current forums may get diluted if too many others are created. The only one I think might be very helpful is a "Students" forum ... BUT !!!! If students use it to give each other bad advice it will be counterproductive. What they could use it for that would be very beneficial is to discuss their frustrations when having difficulty with particular jumps, manuvers, areas of learning, etc. These are things that I don't think they can discuss with most instructors, for several reasons. Their instructors may not have the empathy for students, may have forgotten what it was like to be a student, may be busy and not very approachable, may not care. :( etc. There is no one like someone doing the same thing you are doing to better understand your problems. In other words, "Ask your instructor" may be good advice from us, but may not be very helpful. As instructors we focus on the safety and physical process of skydiving, but to the strudent much of it is mental, e.g., nevousness, performance anxiety, etc.

Vladimir was living in the St. Louis area a few years ago when he was developing the Vladiball. I had the pleasure of (I think) being in one of the first groups of people to fly with it. Very neat design. There was section of the device on the first model that had a weakness in the plastic, and the costs were huge for getting the tooling changed to the mold to improve it. Last I heard he is using his own money for this so it is taking a long time. When it becomes available I think you will really like it, and it is a device that nearly any DZO will be comfortable letting you use.

#1868 Demo accuracy canopy available at the dz for an accuracy meet. Knotted lines, slider tangled. Landed just outside the peas. Let the canopy manuafacturer go get his canopy. He got the idea when I landed and called his canopy a POS!

What is "flat packing"? One in a series of articles I would like to point everyone to when I see enough people refering to a subject... (The term "flat packing" kind of drives me crazy.) http://www.pcprg.com/packing.htm can be found at http://www.pcprg.com/skydive.htm which is the "Skydiver Area" of http://www.pcprg.com The Parks College Parachute Research Group

Flies nicely, much like a Sabre (original, not Sabre2). Many of them opened too quickly for comfort, so get a few jumps on it to decide. I had one and eventually sold it because I could not get the opening slowed down, even with a bigger slider.

She said: Oh rats, now I have to sit and do some searches. He said: That's right, I would like people to look around. There are a lot of ways to market skydiving. Most of the negative I have seen has been on the "equipment" and "training" oriented pages. She said: Gary, what do you mean by "positive"? Are you talking about true advertisement? He said: By positive I meant lack of negative, for example: 1. Unlike blah, blah, we use only the latest... 2. Blah blah (equipment, method, etc.) is outdated and we don't use that... Even using the word "safest" is questionable, because it implies that someone is using something (equip or method) that is less safe, and that would be negative. Like PubWoof said in the "negative" thread, skydiving is competing with other activities, so why would a dz want to be negative. Let's find some examples that are _all_ positive. . .

DZ Web sites "most positive to skydiving" Well, my post about drop zones that have web sites with content that is _negative_ to skydiving got quite a few responses. It seems to bother quite a few people that drop zones speak negatively about skydiving for "marketing" reasons. But still, it seems unlikely that it will bother anyone enough to tell a drop zone what they think. I guess I don't blame them. Here is another one. Give us some examples of drop zones that have a web site with positive or almost completely positive content. Think you can find one? Sure you can! And those drop zones need to be complimented. (To be fair you need to do a little looking around and not just nominate your local DZ. There are others.) I found one already, a rather large one, and not anywhere near me. No, I'm not going to nominate it yet. I want to see what some of you come up with. . .

Under a smaller canopy than expected: I started a new topic because the old one that is similar is getting rather long and because there is some arguing going on. (Imagine that!) Believe it or not, those of you that jump demo canopies at events might have me partially to thank for the degree to which manufacturers now take care to identify the canopies in their demo rigs. How's that, you ask? Well, it has been a long time ago, so long that it was before many people had zero porosity 9 cell main canopies, and so long ago that some manufactuers had round reserves in some of their demo rigs. I was at the WFFC and was trying a few new canopies available, in particular, some zero porosity (which was fairly new at the time) 9 cells. I was given a rig that was supposed to contain a >200 sq. ft. 9 cell zero-P main, but got a sub 150 sq. ft. 7 cell F-111. Granted, this doesn't sound small now, but I was jumping a big canopy, I am big, and I had never jumped such a small canopy. Well, I opened, and was quite shocked. The first thing to go through my mind was using the reserve, but what reserve did I have? (Duh!, I forgot to look.) What if it was a round? I said to myself, "OK, man, you have 2000 jumps and you have a lot of experience with PLF's, having made 40 round jumps, so you are going to land this thing and do the best PLF you have ever done." And you know what? There was plenty of wind, the canopy flew great, and I probably did not need to do the PLF. (Although I recommend it if you are ever in the same situation.) I took the rig back to the manufacturer, who looked so completely shell-shocked when they saw that canopy that I felt sorry for them. They established some "safeguards" after that. You'll notice I've not mentioned the manufacturer. I know that they want that to be in the distant past. . .

Phonics: But dont you think that students should be made aware of skydiving dangers before they fork out loadsa cash for a course? It can a fairly dangerous sport and I think students would prefer to have all the correct details then make their choice. G.P.: Sure, but I was commenting strictly from the marketing viewpoint of a drop zone. Unfortunately, I think a prospective skydiving student is going to need to do a bit of research about skydiving to get the "truth" about the risk of skydiving. And that means going to places other than a drop zone's web site! Can any of you point us to any _commercial drop zone's_ web site that has a page about "Here are the risks, the numbers, etc.?

Paul Quade wrote: (in response to my original post) Forget responsibility for a second. It's just bad advertising to remind people of why they might not want your product to begin with. Any references at all to unsafe or reckless behavior anywhere in the sport automatically makes people question whether or not they want to do the act at all. Gary: Folks, Paul got the idea I was trying to make. I was not talking about ASC, gross misrepresentation, or bad business practices. (Not passing judgement on anyone at all, I'll let you form your own opinion.) I was talking about the subtle things that probably many drop zones state in their web sites, brochures, and even their personal conversations with potential students. Why would anyone want to mention _anything_ negative while trying to sell skydiving?!!! If I were a DZO I would try to downplay anything negative, (even accidents at a competing drop zone!), just to keep a potential student from becoming scared of skydiving. In other words, if you sling mud, you are going to wind up with mud on you.