What do you say when people use 45 degree rule or try to get others to use it?

[strop45 0]

Apparently saying "it doesn't work" or "its bullshit" isn't the right thing.

The problem is when people who have ten times your experience start explaining it (and generally these are the only people who use it), its hard to argue against the "we'll I've been using it for 25 years and it works"!!!

No amount of explanation or discussion seems to help as you are trying to tell them that they have been wrong for years?

suggestions?

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein

[billvon 2,384]

>What do you say when people use 45 degree rule or try to get
>others to use it?

"Why don't you exit first, then?"

[GaryRay 0]

i explain to them that the group never gets to 45deg and thanks to billvon i have hard evidence, they will sometimes reply with "but they get close" and thats when you have a solid piece of evidence for it.

JewBag.
www.jewbag.wordpress.com

[feuergnom 22]

the only reason why a system that has been prooved to be inaccurate is still working is that i gets people to actually look out the door thus providing (nearly?) adequate separation

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[phoenixlpr 0]

So?

Is the Sun rising on the East? 90 degrees sharp? No, but that is a good approximation anyway.

45 degree rule is a bit better than nothing.

[kimemerson 7]

If spotting had not become a lost art, deteriorating from when it was essential that everyone know how, down to having someone on the load sport for the load, down to only the pilot spotting and everyone on the load whistling Dixie as they exit like it's stepping out of a chauffeured limo, then there might not be much discussion on this. But I've heard people ask "how many seconds" and then they count like it's a speed reading test as they look out into space and disappear into the void sans clue. I've seen people attempt to employ some semblance of some concept of a 45° rule but then discover that the group before never got to 45° so they wait... and wait.... and wait.... I've seen people refuse to get out when the plane wasn't over the drop zone regardless of the winds aloft because they don't know, they just don't know.
So, why don't people just learn how to spot like it mattered and take a little responsibility and act with knowledge rather than just with a parcel of patchwork advice?

And don't even get me started on landing in light & variable winds and choosing a landing direction.

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

And don't even get me started on landing in light & variable winds and choosing a landing direction.

i'm a strong supporter of the first-man-down thing..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[bullin82 0]

Quote

If spotting had not become a lost art, deteriorating from when it was essential that everyone know how.

*students POV*

My main instructor said day 1 "spotting has become a lost art since GPS showed up." "Your not requird to learn it to get licenced." and then he said the thing that made me the happiest since i want to learn as much as i can about this glorious sport:"Its not required unless you get instruction from here, we require you to plan, map, and spot your own check dive, if you dont do it correctly you will fail." though i am a baby in the sport i love the fact that when i jump they allow me to stick my head out the door and make my own judgement on the spot. Of course if im looking through my crooked eye at the time they correct me and i learn. Just my 2 cents on spotting.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

So?

Is the Sun rising on the East? 90 degrees sharp? No, but that is a good approximation anyway.

45 degree rule is a bit better than nothing.

It is? Can you explain how a "rule" that can be rigorously proven to NOT do what is supposed to do is better than nothing?

Now, if it involved unstowing a protractor, setting it carefully the door, sighting along it, checking twice, and re- stowing it before climbing out, maybe it would be OK.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Reginald 0]

The same thing I say when people try to use timed separation and don't know the direction and strength of the upper level winds, the direction the plane is flying relative to them or how to count without rushing. DON'T KILL ME! And then we sit down and I explain to them how both 45 and timed separation are trying to do the same thing which is to provide adequate separation over the ground between groups at opening.

And while this board has a strong bias toward timed separation (and I tend to agree) the 45 degree guys have a valid point, that it approximates separation pretty well and is simple to understand and execute; which means it is less likely to be screwed up in its execution although it is theoretically less sound. It has major flaws but honestly so does timed separation; which is theoretically better but many people tend to fail to understand or execute properly. If I only had a dollar for every person that told me that 6 seconds was all that was ever needed and had no clue how to calculate separation based on the inputs.

Here’s a wild concept I use - I actually know what the uppers are doing each day and throughout the day - I use timed separation combined with sticking my head out the door and looking at the group that left before me while I’m counting. If the previous group has not moved sufficiently over the ground (which is the actually visual reference one is supposed to be looking for in the “45 degree rule”) than I add to my count and recheck the uppers when I get down as they might be stronger than I was told. If there is too much separation over the ground based on my count than good but I also recheck the uppers to see if there has been a material change in their strength so I can recalibrate my timed separation for the next jump.

This inane bickering about 45 degrees amazes me. There is valid information to be gained from sticking one’s head out the door and LOOKING at the group that left previously. When added to the information about the strength of uppers and timed separation, it produces a superior result than either one independently and hence improved safety! Two independent systems that check each other and taking the result that produces the more conservative result improves safety. So what’s the problem here?

And while people are on pet peeves about separation, why is it that some people that use only timed separation don’t stick their heads out the door and LOOK? It drives me bonkers!

Instead of getting into a cat fight about how the “45 degree rule” doesn’t work with a bunch of old timers, which is a pointless battle, why not accept that there is valid information to be gained in its application which is why they gotten away with it for decades? (And remember anyone alive to have the conversation with it has worked for! The dead ones aren’t around to have the conversation) Here’s a hint though – they aren’t really looking for 45 degrees - they are looking for separation over the ground (even if they aren’t expressing it that way) which is yet another reason this debate with protractors is so silly. Why not explain to them that timed separation does the same thing with improved accuracy, and if they tried using it ALSO, while they are looking out the door, it will provide superior results? They might decide they like it! Telling someone that what they’ve done successfully for a lot of years doesn’t work will not win any converts. And honestly the smug “you’re doing it wrong” approach only shows one’s own ignorance in that there IS valid information to help gauge exit separation by looking at the group before you, which is likely why you aren't being received well.

Can’t we just all co-exist?

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[billvon 2,384]

>45 degree rule is a bit better than nothing.

Well, sort of. If you actually use the 45 degree rule you won't get out, ever.

So not only does the 45 degree rule not work, the people who use it don't even understand it. So who knows what they're actually doing?

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Well, sort of. If you actually use the 45 degree rule you won't get out, ever.

So not only does the 45 degree rule not work, the people who use it don't even understand it. So who knows what they're actually doing?

True or not does it matter if they do it 1000x ?
You can make it true if you keep on repeating long enough.

[billvon 2,384]

>True or not does it matter if they do it 1000x ?

If they never get out 1000x? Well, I guess that keeps them safe, but makes it sorta hard on the groups behind them.

If they do it wrong 1000x, and get out too soon? Then yes, that's very bad; they could kill someone.

If they do it 1000x, and always leave 7 seconds? Then it's OK as long as the upper winds aren't very strong. But if they are they could kill someone.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

The same thing I say when people try to use timed separation and don't know the direction and strength of the upper level winds, the direction the plane is flying relative to them or how to count without rushing. DON'T KILL ME! And then we sit down and I explain to them how both 45 and timed separation are trying to do the same thing which is to provide adequate separation over the ground between groups at opening.

And while this board has a strong bias toward timed separation (and I tend to agree) the 45 degree guys have a valid point, that it approximates separation pretty well and is simple to understand and execute; which means it is less likely to be screwed up in its execution although it is theoretically less sound.

It isn't "less sound", it is provably UNsound and invalid both theoretically and empirically. It does NOT approximate separation at all. It is insensitive to the strength of the upper winds.

Its ONLY merit is that people look out the door, but they can also do that while using a valid method.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DBCOOPER 1]

Here’s a wild concept I use - I actually know what the uppers are doing each day and throughout the day ... and recheck the uppers when I get down as they might be stronger than I was told.


Just curious as to how you know the actual winds aloft and how you check them on the ground.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[shropshire 0]

GPS in the a/c would give you this information, wouldn't it?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 2,384]

>the 45 degree guys have a valid point, that it approximates separation
>pretty well and is simple to understand and execute . . .

Well, but by that standard, counting the number of airplanes at your DZ by sticking your head out the door accomplishes the same thing (assuming you have at least, say, 10 airplanes.)

>Here’s a wild concept I use - I actually know what the uppers are doing each
>day and throughout the day - I use timed separation combined with sticking my
>head out the door and looking at the group that left before me while I’m counting.

Here's an even better idea. Know what the uppers are doing each day, time your exit, then stick your head out the door and look DOWN until you're ready to go. That way you'll see the number of airplanes parked at your DZ. Even better, you might even notice an errant airplane flying around beneath you or a high canopy - and noticing such obstacles before exiting is a good thing.

> There is valid information to be gained from sticking one’s head out the
>door and LOOKING at the group that left previously.

Well, yes, you can see whose jumpsuit matches whose rig. But while that is perfectly valid information, it doesn't help you know how long to wait.

>And honestly the smug “you’re doing it wrong” approach only shows one’s
>own ignorance in that there IS valid information to help gauge exit separation by
>looking at the group before you.

What valid separation information is that?

[DBCOOPER 1]

Quote

GPS in the a/c would give you this information, wouldn't it?

yes but then you would know what the actual winds and ground speed are..

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[Bertt 0]

I don't bother non-scientists with science. I just say "Dude, that is so 90's", shake my head, then walk away. That creates enough doubt in their minds about their coolness that the next time they use the 45 degree rule they hesitate briefly, then they decide to stick to their methods and jump - thus achieving the correct, timed separation.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

45 degree rule is a bit better than nothing.

At best it's wrong. At worst, it could lead to inadequate separation. It is not better than nothing.

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

suggestions?

Tell 'em they're wrong and that it's actually closer to 50 degrees.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[MisterCrash 0]

If as a freeflyer, I get a student in front of me (who hasn't gotten any separation briefing), I don't have the time and resources to brief him inside the plane.

What I think is best is to have them look outside, visually follow the group in front of him and checking with me, or with another experienced jumper before exiting.

I tend towards the 45 degree rule myself, even if it has been proven that they never get to 45 degrees. It's just a name fella's. It has more effect than sayin' 7 seconds maty! Cause a nervous student counts FAST!

What I look for is how fast the previous group is shifting (with knowledge of the upper winds) and get out accordingly. The knowlegdge of the upper winds gives you an estimate on how long to wait, but you still have to LOOK!

If somebody is telling a student to wait 7 seconds, it is just to save their own ass and not explain how exit seperation works. And it always seems to come down to the freeflyers trying to brief students about horizontal separation, not to kill the relative guys. Because we have to make shure they wait long enough and we get to see sometimes how fucking fast they get out.

45 degrees or 7 seconds, they are both wrong (but used when there is no time for briefing). The 'right thing' is a 30 minutes briefing on exit order and horizontal separation. Which should happen BEFORE the first solo jump.

All speeding past collide and crashing, I'm in paradise.

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

What I look for is how fast the previous group is shifting (with knowledge of the upper winds) and get out accordingly.

I assume you mean that the group ahead of you will "shift" at a different rate depending on the speed of the upper winds. Not true. The group ahead of you will only "shift" at a different rate if there is a difference in the wind speed at the aircraft's altitude and the group's altitude. And it would have to be one heck of a difference for you to see it with the eye.

Since it takes about 10 seconds to fall the first 1000 feet, and since having a major difference in wind speed over a 1000 foot altitude change is quite rare (especially at altitude), your theory appears to have a few holes in it.

The really bad part about crap like this is that it will get someone hurt someday.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[DanG 1]

Where are you jumping that your students are not being supervised in the plane? The briefing that your instructional staff apparently has no time for should have been done on the ground, and actively reinforced by an appropriate rating holder in the aircraft.

- Dan G

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

...why not accept that there is valid information to be gained in its application...

And what would that information be?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX