Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
SL Unsafe??

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

GeekStreak  (Student)

May 21, 2001, 1:44 PM
Post #1 of 32 (2825 views)
Shortcut
SL Unsafe?? Can't Post

Last Saturday I went to a "near-by" DZ to check it out and found out that they don't offer static line jumps because, and I quote, "they aren't safe".

Were they just trying to get me into AFF or is SL truly more risky?

Karl



MC208B  (A 35654)

May 21, 2001, 5:57 PM
Post #2 of 32 (2785 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

Static Line unsafe?!? lol!!! They want your dough pal plain and simple. AFF=accelerated financial failure!



cloud9  (D 27635)

May 21, 2001, 6:54 PM
Post #3 of 32 (2775 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

It just doesn't get any safer then static line!!! It gets a lot more fun, but no safer.



cdunham

May 21, 2001, 7:08 PM
Post #4 of 32 (2774 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

Sounds like one of those religious things that this DZ has decided they believe in, and won't let go of.

Kind of like the statement that Java programs won't perform well, or that pull-outs create income for riggers. Smile

Carl



Geoff

May 22, 2001, 1:49 AM
Post #5 of 32 (2746 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

Sounds like they just wanted to sell what they offer, and talk down the alternative.

Reminds me of a rig manufacturer, whose RSL set-up is particularly inelegant. When a low-time jumper asked the manufacturer's advice on ordering the rig with an RSL, he was told 'you don't need it if you're getting a Cypres'.

I think most of us (whether pro- or anti- Cypres or RSL) agree that the two devices perform very separate functions, and neither is a substitute for the other.

There really is a strong tendency, even in our safety-critical sport, for people to say whatever plausible sounding crap they think they can get away with in order to sell their product.

Sad but true

Geoff



Premier SkymonkeyONE  (D 12501)

May 22, 2001, 6:35 AM
Post #6 of 32 (2728 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

That "near by DZ" representative was smoking crack when he told you that SL was unsafe. It is VERY hard to get your parachute NOT to open jumping SL. I have had students perform every type of incorrect exit in the book and guess what... their main still opened. We do not allow students to progress to the next level without first demonstrating their ability to pull thier own main in a flat and stable manner. While SL might be considered stone-age by many, nowadays with the new ISP all training methods have the same degree of competency instilled in the students by the time they "stop paying" for instruction.

The simple answer to the response you got from that DZ, though, was that they were pushing you into their prefered method of training. Some DZs just don't have the staff qualifications to teach other than their primary method. If you really want to learn SL, then I reccomend a smaller DZ.

Chuck



GeekStreak  (Student)

May 22, 2001, 6:41 AM
Post #7 of 32 (2724 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

Just as I suspected.

Thanks for the input Smile.

I'll drive the extra 20 miles to my honest DZ.

Blue Skies,

Karl




Donna  (A 37295)

May 22, 2001, 9:25 AM
Post #8 of 32 (2700 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Reminds me of a rig manufacturer, whose RSL set-up is particularly inelegant. When a low-time jumper asked the manufacturer's advice on ordering the rig with an RSL, he was told 'you don't need it if you're getting a Cypres'.
I think I know which one you are talking about because I was told the same thing. I was pretty shocked. I was even more surprised when an ST&A I know and respect also told me the exact same thing.

Blue 1111,
D


wildblue  (D 26027)

May 23, 2001, 6:09 AM
Post #9 of 32 (2658 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It just doesn't get any safer then static line!!! It gets a lot more fun, but no safer
There's a lot of people that would argue this (the safe part). I don't have much of an opinion on it, but looking through fatality reports of the last few years, there seems to be a lot more ".... static line progression..." in there than "... AFF ..."



riggerrob  (D 14840)

May 23, 2001, 11:09 AM
Post #10 of 32 (2630 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

Challenge that S.O.B. to explain that if S/L is so dangerous, how come hundreds of armies dispatch thousands of S/L jumpers per year - when many of those jumps are made from altitudes too low for reserve inflation - and military jump fatality rates are insignificant?
Any time a salesman or politician starts talking down the competition I simply take my business elsewhere. Life is too short to dwell on that sort of negative vibe.
"Stop killing my buzz."



MarkM  (C 35089)

May 23, 2001, 11:45 AM
Post #11 of 32 (2625 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There's a lot of people that would argue this (the safe part). I don't have much of an opinion on it, but looking through fatality reports of the last few years, there seems to be a lot more ".... static line progression..." in there than "... AFF ..."
Well...

1. More DZs have used SL than AFF, particularly when you go a year or two back.
2. You can put quite a few more people through a SL program at a DZ than AFF.

One Saturday my DZ up in Goshen IN put out 21 first jump students. Classes larger than 10 weren't uncommon and this wasn't a very large DZ. They had two small planes and three instructors.

The only fatalities I've heard of with SL is when a student grabs the pilot chute of their main when the tether pulls it out as they leave the plane and they don't let it go.

And even that can be avoided if you use a direct bag system.

Past that you're dealing with a newbie under a good or bad canopy which is the same whether you're using AFF or SL.





Geoff

May 24, 2001, 12:03 PM
Post #12 of 32 (2572 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

Here in the UK, direct bag is the only allowed SL method, and to my mind seems safer - the main is virtually guaranteed to come out as the bag stays with the plane.

Does anyone see any safety advantage to the SL pulling a pin or ripcord (not sure what the setup is for non-DB).

Geoff



MarkM  (C 35089)

May 24, 2001, 12:29 PM
Post #13 of 32 (2570 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

On the non-DB systems I think it attaches to the pilot chute via velcro and pulls it out. Dunno if/how it pulls the pin.

I guess the advantage would be that you don't have to use a special D bag and packers don't have to change the way they pack to accomodate a different bag.

I've jumped both SL systems and while I wouldn't call the non-DB SL system "unsafe", I preferred the DB system.

Tandem, SL, IAD, AFF, direct bag, non-direct bag, ripcord or BOC, SOS or two handle system, one hand on each reserve handle or two hands on each reserve handle: are all very safe provided they're done correctly.

All are dangerous if not done correctly.

I wouldn't choose a DZ based on what they do as much as how they do it.




wildblue  (D 26027)

May 24, 2001, 1:58 PM
Post #14 of 32 (2560 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Tandem, SL, IAD, AFF, direct bag, non-direct bag, ripcord or BOC, SOS or two handle system, one hand on each reserve handle or two hands on each reserve handle: are all very safe provided they're done correctly.
Very nicely put.



johnny1488  (D 25453)

May 24, 2001, 6:08 PM
Post #15 of 32 (2550 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

<<Static Line unsafe?!? lol!!! They want your dough pal plain and simple. AFF=accelerated financial failure!>>



I've seen static line gear that is definatly unsafe but it doesn't mean it all is. Plus from what i've seen its not that much cheeper. 5 sl jumps then 10 second ff then 15 second ff = a lot of $125 jumps.



<FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by johnny1488 on 5/24/01 06:14 PM.</EM></FONT>


cloud9  (D 27635)

May 24, 2001, 6:55 PM
Post #16 of 32 (2548 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

I looked at the fatalities of actual static line jumps in the USA for the last 5 years.
2001 0 of 9 fatalities
2000 0 of 32 fatalities
1999 1 of 29 fatalities
1998 3 of 48 fatalities
1997 1 of 33 fatalities
Total of 5 fatalities on static line jumps compared to 152 other fatalities. Looks to me like the rag line is a pretty safe way to go.

bleau skies



MC208B  (A 35654)

May 24, 2001, 7:19 PM
Post #17 of 32 (2546 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

Static line where I learned jumping is $140 for FJC. $45 a jump till cleared off student status, then $15 for gear rental plus $ for altitude. Maybe 40 jumps for the price of the local AFF 7 jump program?!? Much more reasonable and hey, we're not scared to get out at 3 grand either! Mike



GeekStreak  (Student)

May 25, 2001, 8:40 AM
Post #18 of 32 (2524 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

WOW! That's quite a difference.

Conclusion: The guy that said it was unsafe should see those numbers. Wink

Thanks Everybody! Especially you, Cloud!

Blue Skies,
Geek



DBTECH  (B 21186)

May 25, 2001, 8:51 PM
Post #19 of 32 (2501 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

Before I moved to Arizona, as pilot I put out about 5000 static line students at Hinckley, Illinois.
None died, but of course there where some broken bones landing under cheapos and T-10's.
On a load that I did not fly, a 350 pound first jump student broke both tibias landing under a 44 foot cargo chute! All of the static line jumps at Hinckley were direct bag deployment. (no pilot chute--bag stays with aircraft)

Dave Brownell



des  (F 372)

May 28, 2001, 3:33 AM
Post #20 of 32 (2454 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

just want your money!that's a crock!
s/l is more profitable to the dz than aaf.
eg 1st jump c182
s/l 4x students @ 125 = 500
cost 1 j/m 4 students @ 5 = 20
plane to 3000 @ 150per hr(assuming 4 passes) 20 mins =50
profit to dz $430
(most places can carry 5 jumpers in a 182).
1 aff student @ 350,2 up jumpers @ 20 = 390
2 j/m's @ 30= 60
182 to 10000ft 30 mins =75
dz profit =255
i realize these figures are arbitrary,but can some one demonstrate them working the other way?you can also look at tandem jumps this way,and including reasonable gear hire,also falls behind s/l profitability.
as a s/l, and aff instructor,imho,both methods work,but my kids,will be doing aff,(sorry sons,no choice for you).




MC208B  (A 35654)

May 28, 2001, 10:50 PM
Post #21 of 32 (2420 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

hey Des, you're kinda cooking the books there aren't ya! The local AFF zone here has a Caravan chock full of tandems and AFF dents, they make a fortune on every run to altitude. As for the DENTS costs for getting a license, SL is much cheaper, but then you can probably crunch the numbers whichever way you please. $150 an hour for a 182?!? I maintain Caravans for a large overnight airfreight company here in Portland and we're one of the higher priced contractors, a Caravan (208B) is about $250 and hour. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.....go figure....lol! Mike



MC208B  (A 35654)

May 28, 2001, 10:59 PM
Post #22 of 32 (2418 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

oh forgot this one Des, 5 jumpers in a 182? Not at my zone (I also fly the 182) hot day and 3 good sized jumpers and me, that's it! Of course, it's only a 1,700 foot grass strip. Maybe with a longer runway or the 300 HP and extended wings and leading edge cuffs STC, five would work, but for Christs sake, we would be packed in their like sardines! No farting please!!!



des  (F 372)

May 29, 2001, 2:49 AM
Post #23 of 32 (2408 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

not trying to "cook books", i forgot that the us is the only important place ,and the only place that does things right. please convert dollars mentioned to australian dollars,and 150 per hr for a 182 is cheap!but it doesn't matter the relationship is the same.i was fulltime instructor for 5 yrs,we always took 5 jumpers in a 182,no problem,and perfectly legal,30 mins to 12,000' was average.
again 3 or 5 ,it doesn't really matter!as i said my figures were arbitrary.my question was,can somebody show me different.i KNOW s/l is more profitable.prove me wrong.
we also had a caravan,and averaged about 40 tandems a weekend, the dzo,would have been very happy for them all to have been s/l, except for the worry factor!
i nearly got really sarcastic here,but restrained myself,cos i've had a few beers again.
a caravan in oz hires out at about 800 pr hr.before you ask ,after conversion jump prices are exactly the same as in the us,about $us17.
des




BenW  (C License)

May 29, 2001, 3:06 AM
Post #24 of 32 (2407 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't know about which is more profitable, but it's cheaper for the student to do static line - well, it was for me anyway:

Cost for AFF in UK at my DZ (8 jumps)= ~ 1290

Add 10 consol jumps @ 32 = 320

This gives us 1610 for AFF route to BPA A license

RAPS S/L 6 jump course = 290

14 more jumps to A license @ 32 per jump = 448

Total RAPS S/L course to BPA A license = 738

That makes a difference of 1610-738= 872 cheaper.

Makes it a little cheaper than AFF! I don't know how many jumps anyone else takes but it worked out almost half price for me!

Just my 0.02 pennies.

B.



MarkM  (C 35089)

May 29, 2001, 8:08 AM
Post #25 of 32 (2385 views)
Shortcut
Re: SL Unsafe?? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
eg 1st jump c182
s/l 4x students @ 125 = 500
cost 1 j/m 4 students @ 5 = 20
plane to 3000 @ 150per hr(assuming 4 passes) 20 mins =50
profit to dz $430
How much profit is the DZ seeing on the 2nd plus jumps when the student costs go down to 45 per?

At max load at my old DZs, at 3 students and 1 instructor in a C182 at 45-50 bucks per student, the DZO was just about breaking even when you figured in fuel and rig costs.





First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)