James, yes, she did make it back. She opened at 3k. and here's a question for you all... Ive heard arguments for both unstowing brakes in this situation (on the main) and for flying stowed on both canopies.. thoughts?
DZH, start a new thread on this question, so it does not get lost in the thread here.. It's a good question.
No it's not a good question. EPs are quite clear on a biplane here in the U.S. Besides there are already numerous threads about this "re-invent the wheel" argument in here.
Then why isn't there an outcry to ban all cameras from skydiving? No, the debate is solely focused on small format cameras on jumpers without C-Licenses, which is just a USPA recommendation not a rule!
You are so far off base that I could throw you out from deep center field.
Don't get 1 audible get 2 and finally only fuckheads pull low.........altitude is your friend....you'll realize why the day you cut away a mal................
Tell me you are NOT saying an audible will prevent this situation. Tell me you are NOT telling him to depend on an audible...please.
An audible would likely have prevented the situation because it would have reminded him that he was not paying attention.
That does not mean that a person has to be dependent on the audible to remind them when they need to pull.
It seems that some will equate the desire to have an audible with dependence on it. Of course that is a risk, and awareness of that risk and how to avoid it is important. That does not change the fact that having a highly reliable audible would likely have kept the OP from being so negligent.
Don't get 1 audible get 2 and finally only fuckheads pull low.........altitude is your friend....you'll realize why the day you cut away a mal................
Tell me you are NOT saying an audible will prevent this situation. Tell me you are NOT telling him to depend on an audible...please.
Of course he's not saying trust an audible... That is why he said get 2
Nov 23, 2011, 7:06 AM
Post #131 of 147
(1363 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] 2 out roof landing
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
It seems that some will equate the desire to have an audible with dependence on it. Of course that is a risk, and awareness of that risk and how to avoid it is important.
All true enough. And I agree. We've seen that dependence happen all too often.
In reply to:
That does not change the fact that having a highly reliable audible would likely have kept the OP from being so negligent.
And therein lies the rub. Good stuff...if it sounds off....if he hears it...if he recognizes what that particular sound-off means.
Not against audibles at all....just not confident that all will go well every day on every jump. Good place for complacency to bite an ass.
Me? I have much more confidence in my two eyeballs, that's all.
Call me chickenshit if you like. Maybe I have an overly-active sense of self-preservation.
DZH, start a new thread on this question, so it does not get lost in the thread here.. It's a good question.
No it's not a good question. EPs are quite clear on a biplane here in the U.S. Besides there are already numerous threads about this "re-invent the wheel" argument in here.
Yes, it is a good question.
And a separate thread was started which examined the issue and didn't reveal any clear evidence why the 'release the brakes' method would be correct.
It may be a very reasonable option to release the brakes, and is supported by the procedures listed by a very large skydiving organization (the USPA). But the thread showed no evidence that releasing the brakes is the only correct way.
If you know what other "numerous threads" provide such evidence, I'd be interested to read them.
Saying that releasing the brakes is the only possible way basically says, "I'm an American, fuck yeah, we're always right!" or "The writers of the SIM are Gods. They shall not be questioned."
Most of what is in the SIM is probably pretty good though.
It may be a very reasonable option to release the brakes, and is supported by the procedures listed by a very large skydiving organization (the USPA). But the thread showed no evidence that releasing the brakes is the only correct way.
It's not an issue of "correct" or "incorrect". It's an issue of "best practices".
Both methods have been tried and tested and releasing the brakes was shown to be more reliable. That's why it's recommended...not because it's the only "correct" way.
In reply to:
Saying that releasing the brakes is the only possible way basically says, "I'm an American, fuck yeah, we're always right!" or "The writers of the SIM are Gods. They shall not be questioned."
Well, let's not go to extremes here. Nobody is saying any of that at all. Again, simply a matter of best practices.
Let me ask...the two methods have been tried and tested and one was shown to be the better option. Why in the world would anyone choose to use the lesser of the two?
Both methods have been tried and tested and releasing the brakes was shown to be more reliable.
Really? By whom? Where was it reported? That's all I'm asking. I'm open to either method being better than the other, but just can't find any actual reports of tests to strongly support either method.
Don't get 1 audible get 2 and finally only fuckheads pull low.........altitude is your friend....you'll realize why the day you cut away a mal................
Tell me you are NOT saying an audible will prevent this situation. Tell me you are NOT telling him to depend on an audible...please.
No altitude awareness full stop will prevent this situation, anyone back flying is free flying and at my DZ if you want to freely the rule is you have an audible.
I took Brian Germain's advice and I have 2 of them and I think that is a good idea, just passing it on :-)
And anyone who depends on an audible is a fuckhead........
Both methods have been tried and tested and releasing the brakes was shown to be more reliable.
Really? By whom? Where was it reported? That's all I'm asking. I'm open to either method being better than the other, but just can't find any actual reports of tests to strongly support either method.
My reference is the testing done and documented by the U.S. Army Parachute Team and others. You're already aware of this from the "Steering a 2 out bi-plane" thread:
One minor issue with audibles, is the ability for you to completely tune it out. Have you ever landed and really didnt remember the audible going off? as silly as it sounds I will take mine out every now and then for a few jumps and then replace it. It refreshes the startle effect of the device. Just my own thoughts.
One minor issue with audibles, is the ability for you to completely tune it out. Have you ever landed and really didnt remember the audible going off? as silly as it sounds I will take mine out every now and then for a few jumps and then replace it. It refreshes the startle effect of the device. Just my own thoughts.
When I began skydiving (not very long ago at all) we were always told, "as long as you walk away it was a good skydive". While aware of the naivete of that comment, it is disappointing to see that someone with just an extensive skydiving career, feels they need to debase another skydiver to tout their own self esteem. If you are interested enough to critique the jump with such detail, then you should also find positives and have a rational, not banshee worthy, conversation to help out this skydiver. In short, climb on out of that ivory tower. It's easy to find negatives in anything, tell me what he did right. That....is how people learn. Not by criticizing at hyena frequencies. To the skydiver, nice to see you motivated to try new things i.e. back flying albeit a bit low, nice job avoiding the wire on that house, and lastly, thanks for posting an "educational" video for us all.
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Dec 18, 2011, 10:09 AM
Post #144 of 147
(731 views)
Shortcut
When I began skydiving (not very long ago at all) we were always told, "as long as you walk away it was a good skydive". While aware of the naivete of that comment, it is disappointing to see that someone with just an extensive skydiving career, feels they need to debase another skydiver to tout their own self esteem. If you are interested enough to critique the jump with such detail, then you should also find positives and have a rational, not banshee worthy, conversation to help out this skydiver. In short, climb on out of that ivory tower. It's easy to find negatives in anything, tell me what he did right. That....is how people learn. Not by criticizing at hyena frequencies. To the skydiver, nice to see you motivated to try new things i.e. back flying albeit a bit low, nice job avoiding the wire on that house, and lastly, thanks for posting an "educational" video for us all.
He survived. That's about all that's right in this skydive. True, people learn from positive reinforcement, but in this case he already knows he survived. Skydiving isn't Little League or pre-school where everyone gets a trophy for participating whether their team won or lost. This chain of events had several links, and removing one of them would have most likely changed the outcome.
~Camera on helmet with far too few jumps/intentionally ignoring USPA recommendation ~No jump plan in place ~No deployment plan in place ~Lost two others in freefall (was allegedly a group of four) ~fell past two other open canopies, indicating it was past "normal" pull time. ~waited for subject to pull, although well past "normal" pull time. ~no altimeter check (remember COA? it was only a few jumps past his student jumps). ~Intentionally put down on a roof when it was not at all necessary. This could prove to be very problematic for the jumper's well-being, the dropzone, the homeowner, and other skydivers if the homeowner decided to press the issue.
"Congrats, you exited and didn't hurt yourself or anyone else" isn't a valid nor valuable part of a debrief, not when we're speaking to a licensed skydiver.
Were it my debrief, it would have gone down a list similar to above, with a "thanks for sharing the video so others might learn from your mistake."
To the skydiver, nice to see you motivated to try new things i.e. back flying albeit a bit low, nice job avoiding the wire on that house, and lastly, thanks for posting an "educational" video for us all.
Please tell me this is your attempt at making a joke. "Nice to see you motivated to try new things, back flying a bit low?
You want to congratulate this guy for that? You can take that approach, I think telling him what a stupid idiot he is to get himself in that situation is what works better. He could have easily died and number of ways on this jump...
When I began skydiving (not very long ago at all) we were always told, "as long as you walk away it was a good skydive". While aware of the naivete of that comment, it is disappointing to see that someone with just an extensive skydiving career, feels they need to debase another skydiver to tout their own self esteem. If you are interested enough to critique the jump with such detail, then you should also find positives and have a rational, not banshee worthy, conversation to help out this skydiver. In short, climb on out of that ivory tower. It's easy to find negatives in anything, tell me what he did right. That....is how people learn. Not by criticizing at hyena frequencies. To the skydiver, nice to see you motivated to try new things i.e. back flying albeit a bit low, nice job avoiding the wire on that house, and lastly, thanks for posting an "educational" video for us all.
This ain't tennis kid, when the spinnin' ball in this sport hits ya, it's game OVER ~ you lose.
If ya screw up here don't expect a bunch of warm & fuzzies from everybody...Gravity is not kind to fools, watch a few of 'em crater and you won't be either.
