kill-line pilot chutes for first jump students?

[riggerrob 558]

How many schools are using kill-line pilot chutes on rigs worn by first jump students?

By rigs, I mean the popular 260 to 300 square foot Mantas, Navigators, Solos, etc.
By first jump students, I mean IAD or AFF.

[Andy_Copland 0]

At our DZ we have 280, 260, 240, 220 and 200 Navigators. None of them have kill line pilot chutes.

I watched a guy progress from AFF to newly A licensed jumper, buy a rig and when he asked me to check it out i noticed his PC wasn't cocked as he had no idea how to do it. Thats no fault of his own in my opinion as he's doing what he was trained to do.

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[AndyMan 7]

At Chicagoland, last I saw none of the first jump rigs (Navigators 240-280) had kill lines.

The "transition" rigs did have kill lines.

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

How many schools are using kill-line pilot chutes on rigs worn by first jump students?

By rigs, I mean the popular 260 to 300 square foot Mantas, Navigators, Solos, etc.
By first jump students, I mean IAD or AFF.

I have not seen any. 200-300 sqft canopies can handle a trailing PC and my guess is the non-collapsible PC is cheaper and requires less maintenance.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I watched a guy progress from AFF to newly A licensed jumper, buy a rig and when he asked me to check it out i noticed his PC wasn't cocked as he had no idea how to do it. Thats no fault of his own in my opinion as he's doing what he was trained to do.

Ummm... it was his rig, right?

[Andy_Copland 0]

I have become cynical in my time skydiving. If D license jumpers don't expect to do night jumps or know how to do a proper line check/inspection on a canopy i just wonder why a person with 25 jumps should know about collapsible PC's.

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

i just wonder why a person with 25 jumps should know about collapsible PC's.

It's on need to know basis. If he jumps with it than he should know.

[JohnnyMarko 1]

Quote

Quote

i just wonder why a person with 25 jumps should know about collapsible PC's.

It's on need to know basis. If he jumps with it than he should know.

The student rig I jump has a collapsible PC...I've known about them since jump 1

[DSE 3]

none of ours do, but I've seen em' and asked about them.
The response I received was "Since a student rig has to be packed by a rigger anyway, it makes no difference." I don't know that I agree.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I don't know that I agree.

Why not?

If the kill line breaks, then its a standard PC. Instructors are supposed to conduct a gear check before the student gets the rig, another after the student gears up and one more before exiting the plane. So the thoughts that a student would jump with a collapsed PC are relatively muted. If the instructor isn't keen enough to check for a cocked PC, then are they keen enough to operate an AAD, RSL connection, chest strap or anything else?

I have no dog in the fight, I just don't understand the argument.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I do understand that all of those things have been overlooked by an instructor on gear checks. That is a completely separate issue in my mind.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[DSE 3]

Quote

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I do understand that all of those things have been overlooked by an instructor on gear checks. That is a completely separate issue in my mind.

That's precisely my point. It's just another layer of protection for the student.

[SEREJumper 1]

I had a jumper with 300-400 jumps look at my dad's rig with a non-collapsible PC and ask "So how does it work then if it doesn't collapse".

We're not fucking flying airplanes are we, no we're flying a glorified kite with no power and it should be flown like one! - Stratostar

[SStewart 13]

All of our student rigs have kill line pilot chutes, boc deployed.
During the FJC each student is trained how they operate and the importance of making sure they are cocked when they are packed. During packing training this is also stressed and checking the pilot chute is an integral part of every gear check from the very first solo jump.

When I first started training students back in the 80"s the student jumpers gear was vastly different than what the experienced jumpers were using and as they advanced there was always a transitional training period.

I personally went from round mains and chest mounted reserves to round mains and back mounted reserves to square mains and round reserves and eventually two square parachutes. The handles were always changing positions, we went from capewells to 3 rings, bellybands to legstrap mounted pilot chutes, and eventually bottom of container mounted pilot chutes.

I did not jump a rig with a kill line pilot chute until I had almost 2000 jumps. so I had to re-learn how to pack my PC. Even with that experience level I still had to do something different than what I was used to and it was yet another transition.

So why the history lesson? Well, we found over the years that many people had problems transitioning from one set of gear to another especially novices. In many instances this proved fatal. Jumpers trained on SOS systems that went to a two handle system would pull the wrong handle due to muscle memory or just simply reverting back to their initial training. I can see the same thing happening to a student that is trained on a non-collapseable pilot chute and then jumping a rig that has one and not knowing the difference or simply forgetting to cock it because they are used to it always being cocked.

I firmly believe each student should be trained on the same system they will use as they advance in the sport. Keep it simple, keep it safe. No need to throw changes in gear to an already challenging environment.

Onward and Upward!

[popsjumper 2]

We have about half and half.

Thanks for the slap on the head, though. I'm going back to all our people who give packing lessons to make sure that they still cover collapsible/non-collapsible/bungee PCs in their instruction. I know I do but I'll double-check the others, too.

When I give packing lessons, I purposely choose a rig with the collapsible PC and intentionally re-hash the PCIT possibilities.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[riggerrob 558]

Thanks for the reminder.
We had a miserable fatality rate during the 1980s and half those fatality reports started with "the deceased was wearing borrowed gear" or "this was his third jump on a new rig...."

I am convinced that the two primary reasons student fatalities declined - during the 1980s - was that Mantas are far more reliable than rounds and handle STANDARDIZATION.

[jumpwally 0]

I don't see what can be gained for adding one more "item" to the check list and learning curve.....once again, its look putting slippers on a dog...why..

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[billvon 2,400]

>So the thoughts that a student would jump with a collapsed PC are relatively muted.

But they do exist. It's another item of risk.

How many times have you checked another jumper's rig, noticed that the window was showing white (or whatever the 'wrong' color is ) and then heard "oh, don't worry about that, it's definitely cocked, it's just not showing the right color any more" ?

It's not a big item but it's there. To me it's akin to putting a split slider or an RDS on a student rig. Would it hurt him? Generally no, provided you used bumpers to keep the slider from coming down to the toggles, and told him how NOT to mess with it. But it's also just unneeded. A regular slider is a bit more reliable and a lot more foolproof.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

But it's also just unneeded.

A collapsible PC does clean up the airfoil, reduces distortion on the top skin of the canopy and generally results in better canopy flight. Even on a canopy as large as 300sq ft loaded at .75:1, it would make a bit of difference. Please don't take that as me advocating that the student canopy needs to "fly faster" with reduced drag. The point is that the canopy would fly more efficiently. Would you want a student pilot to fly with their flaps at 10 degrees the entire time they flew before receiving their license and purchasing their own airplane?

You know, the transition to a throw out PC from a spring loaded PC and ripcord was also said to be an unnecessary added risk to the student, with no benefit. That someone could simply be trained to transition with no problems, much later in the student progression or after. So was the transition to students with BOCs worth the heartache, arguments and added danger that was originally stated? Are we on the same road as before, but with a collapsible PC?

Quote

How many times have you checked another jumper's rig, noticed that the window was showing white (or whatever the 'wrong' color is ) and then heard "oh, don't worry about that, it's definitely cocked, it's just not showing the right color any more" ?

That is a gear maintenance issue, and it should not be a problem for a student rig. Of course, that assumes that a DZ is maintaining their student gear. If they aren't willing to maintain their gear, then that is obviously another issue and not related to this argument.

Just like lazy instructors missing things in a gear check, a DZ that fails to maintain its gear will have other significant issues. Creating a blanket rule that students should not have a collapsible PC won't rectify those issues.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[pchapman 261]

Quote

A collapsible PC does clean up the airfoil, reduces distortion on the top skin of the canopy and generally results in better canopy flight. Even on a canopy as large as 300sq ft loaded at .75:1, it would make a bit of difference. [...] Would you want a student pilot to fly with their flaps at 10 degrees the entire time they flew before receiving their license and purchasing their own airplane?

Adding an analogy to an argument always opens further arguments about the analogy.
No, but I'd send them off in a plane without wheel pants (which would reduce drag), because it may be more convenient for servicing, less likely to sustain damage, and cheaper to maintain, without the wheel pants.

I think it still can be debated whether the drag of the PC makes "enough" difference or not to be really noticeable on a big student canopy.

The decisions on cost and maintenance also depend what one means by first jumps students. AFF students who bought a full course and may in a couple weeks be downsizing already? Or a first jump IAD student, 95%+ of whom might never return?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

The decisions on cost and maintenance also depend what one means by first jumps students. AFF students who bought a full course and may in a couple weeks be downsizing already? Or a first jump IAD student, 95%+ of whom might never return?

That is the best argument for and against so far in the thread. Many of the other reasons are logically dismissed if you can assume a certain amount of professionalism and competence by the instructor(s) involved.

There's a reason why the small 182 DZ I started at (which is no longer open) put me out on my first S/L on a 10 year old Dolphin and with a Laser 9 for a main, when at the same time SD Spaceland was putting students out on top of the line new rigs (I think Mirage, at that time). A dropzone is a business, even a club DZ has to have gear that it can afford, afford to use, afford to maintain and afford to be lost or damaged beyond repair in a cutaway. Economy of scale is also an issue. To continue the example, I imagine that SD Spaceland put out in transition AFF students in a month the number of first jump students my old DZ did in a year.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Even on a canopy as large as 300sq ft loaded at .75:1, it would make a bit of difference. Please don't take that as me advocating that the student canopy needs to "fly faster" with reduced drag. The point is that the canopy would fly more efficiently. Would you want a student pilot to fly with their flaps at 10 degrees the entire time they flew before receiving their license and purchasing their own airplane?

Than ask a glider instructors about the method they teach student how to land and use spoilers. I was told they are instructed to put in about 50% and land......

My instructor told me when I did the conversion course from round to square static-line, there were a methodology where student suppose to have 1-2 first landing without proper flare, just in half-break configuration.....

Is that so bad to push students to have the first jumps with a big canopy, low wing load and a non-collapsible slider and PC?
I don't think so. The complexity is reduced, they can learn the rest later if they are still jumping....