skybill 18 #101 January 30, 2012 Quote It is part of the upcoming agenda ... Quote 3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raise the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet AGL. ... and I don't like it. What do others think? Hi Butts', I concur. Like an old Flyin' thing where pilots would add 5kts above the designated approach speed of their aircraft to avoid stalling on final and burning in for the wife and kids and another 5 kts for "Grandma!!" thus "Grandma speed!!" Go Figure! Get it!!?????SCR-2034, SCS-680 III%, Deli-out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastRon 0 #102 January 30, 2012 I find changing a behavior is much tougher than changing a rule. I once thought 3500 was break-off altitude, and pitching above 2500 was a waste of freefall. Hop and pops were from like 2550- so we had canopy at 2500 or 'thereabouts'... times, equipment and attitudes change- maybe the behavior will too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #103 January 30, 2012 QuoteSo you favor further restrictions on the capable because the incapable break the rules? If you want to look at it that way, you can. Given the turn-over rate for new jumpers (I seem to recall the 'average' length a jumper spends in the sport is 5 years), the majority of jumpers are likely to be newer or 'incapable' as you say. It's like Ron said above, he knows guys that still pull at 1500ft. It's not prevalant, and it's not popular, but it happens. So the idea is that we make a change now, and get the idea that 2k might be a little low for more than a few situations out there to the general jumping public, it's a step in the right direction. It will take time for it to work into the sub-conscious of the community, and really become the new 'standard', and in the mean time, those who are 'capable' can continue to pull where ever they want. Like I said, Ron seems to know guys who still dump at 1500ft, so if the BSR is chnaged, some people will still dump at 2000ft. The idea is that new jumpers coming in will think of 2.5k as 'the rule'. It's all they're going to know, and the idea wil be planted in their heads that anything beyond that is 'low'. Keep in mind that these jumpers lack the knowledge of 'yesteryear' and the gear and jumps that lead to 2k as being established as the minimum. They won't know that 2k is OK if A, B and C are met, but might not apply otherwise, all they know is that the book calls 2k A-OK. Look at it as a pro-active step with an eye on the future. It takes time for new rules to take hold and become the new 'norm'. What would people have thought if the USPA introduced required canopy training and focus on landing patterns back in 1995? Everyone would have said they were crazy, but a need for those things did indeed arise, and the USPA took action about a decade too late. Anyone happy with that situation? Anyone feel like repeating it? Maybe be 'take a chance' and try to stay out in front of things this time around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faulknerwn 36 #104 January 30, 2012 It's odd to me that people actually see newer jumpers pulling that low. The only people that I ever see pull at 2k are the guys who have been jumping 15-20-30 years. The rookies seem terrified to Pull below 3-3500. And they all have modern 'fun' canopies so they enjoy their canopy ride too much to hum it low. It just seems to me that 2k pulls just aren't an issue with anyone who learned in the past 10 years. Or maybe I'm just in an odd part of the skydiving world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #105 January 30, 2012 QuoteIt just seems to me that 2k pulls just aren't an issue with anyone who learned in the past 10 years. Or maybe I'm just in an odd part of the skydiving world I don't think it's odd at all, but some considerations remain. Even if newer jumpers aren't pulling low, they're not going to be newer jumpers forever. They will still be jumping slow opening, higher perofmance, higher loaded canopies, and will still have come up in the sport under the impression that 2k isn't 'low'. The other effect, which I mentioned previously, is that even for people who don't make a habit of pulling low, the idea is still in their heads that anything above 2k isn't all that 'low'. Even if their equipment and experience say otherwise, they may not percieve that they are getting low until they're past 2k, and that's not good. The idea is to shift the perception of 'low' up a notch to account for the changes in skydiving that have taken place since 2k became the 'bottom line'. If we can get people to feel differently about what being 'low' really is, we can improve the odds in terms of reducing people going in partially inflated reserves, low cutaways, and two outs. All good things. Again, effecting change in this sport is a long term process. It takes years for ideas to really take a 'set', and become accepted as the new 'standard'. As we can see with the canopy control situation, if you wait until a problem is rampant, and an obvious trouble spot, you've waited far too long. Even if you could change peoples behavior overnight (as-in with canopy control and selection) there have been countless fatalities and injuries up to this point that could have been avoided. If you factor in all the things that will go wrong while we 'work on' the problem, it's that much worse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faulknerwn 36 #106 January 30, 2012 Out here all the jumpers seem to view anything below 3k as low Maybe it's different at big dropzones but it seems that they view if they pulled as low as 2500 it scares them. Anything below 3 seems to be the new low for jumpers. You couldn't pay them to pull as low as 2. Maybe they just don't read USPa doctrine so much but the attitude of the less than 10 years in the sport out here is that below 3k they've gone low I do suspect that at big dropzones people can develop different attitudes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,116 #107 January 30, 2012 I know that separation altitudes are consistently 500-1000 feet higher than they would have been for similarly-sized formations 30 years ago. At least up to 20 or so (which is the sizes of most of my experience). Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #108 January 30, 2012 >It's odd to me that people actually see newer jumpers pulling that low. The only people >that I ever see pull at 2k are the guys who have been jumping 15-20-30 years. Agreed. Our "hop and pops" are at 4500-5000 feet, and even then newer jumpers don't want to get out that low. It's a rare dive at Perris that has people breaking off below 4000 feet so they can pull at 3000, and 4500-5000 is more common nowadays. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crotalus01 0 #109 January 30, 2012 So why change the BSR for deployment altitude? Whats wrong with 2K, especially since it seems "most" jumpers are pulling above that? I am the exception I suppose - I pretty consistantly pull between 2.5 and 2K. I have pulled under 2K a few times but I dont make a habit of it... As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #110 January 30, 2012 I think it's already become the over all accepted standard to pull well higher then 2k or even 2.5k. I am still not convinced there needs to be a change to the BSR. I don't see a lot of people pulling low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #111 January 30, 2012 >So why change the BSR for deployment altitude? I don't think we need to. It's currently not an issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #112 January 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo you favor further restrictions on the capable because the incapable break the rules? If you want to look at it that way, you can. Given the turn-over rate for new jumpers (I seem to recall the 'average' length a jumper spends in the sport is 5 years), the majority of jumpers are likely to be newer or 'incapable' as you say. Quote Your argument as framed has a problem from the start. According to the 2010 USPA jumper survey, 38% of jumpers have more than 500 jumps, 45% have 26-500 jumps, and only 17% have 25 or fewer jumps. While certainly not conclusive, those numbers don't seem support "a majority" of jumpers being "newer". Moreover, the time someone stays in the sport is irrelevant to the issue. Deployment altitude rules are based on license level, which is vastly different than time in sport. Many jumpers these days have 200 jumps - the minimum necessary to obtain a "C" license and begin dumping at 2k - in less than a year, some in even less than 6 months. Are you saying that those people aren't qualified to dump at 2k because they have a "C" license but somehow just haven't been around long enough? So the idea is that we make a change now, and get the idea that 2k might be a little low for more than a few situations out there to the general jumping public, it's a step in the right direction. It will take time for it to work into the sub-conscious of the community, and really become the new 'standard', and in the mean time, those who are 'capable' can continue to pull where ever they want. Like I said, Ron seems to know guys who still dump at 1500ft, so if the BSR is chnaged, some people will still dump at 2000ft. Quote There is no need to get anything in to the "sub-conscious of the community, and really become the new 'standard'". Minimum deployment altitudes are BSR's. If the BSR says 2k, then it's 2k. Your comments seem to insinuate that jumpers will always go beyond the rules no matter where we set them, which is not the case for the vast majority of jumpers. Whether the minimum is 2k or 2.5k, the enforcement or lack of wouldn't change. DZ's that allow people to break BSR's won't magically begin enforcement because the minimum is raised. In fact, quite the opposite may end up happening. Slack DZ's might enforce a 2.5k minimum even less using the logic that USPA just jacked the altitude up knowing that 2k was safe for appropriately rated jumpers. The idea is that new jumpers coming in will think of 2.5k as 'the rule'. It's all they're going to know, and the idea wil be planted in their heads that anything beyond that is 'low'. Keep in mind that these jumpers lack the knowledge of 'yesteryear' and the gear and jumps that lead to 2k as being established as the minimum. They won't know that 2k is OK if A, B and C are met, but might not apply otherwise, all they know is that the book calls 2k A-OK.Quote 2.5k already is "the rule" for "B" license holders and even 3k for "A" license holders. Your comments make it sound like you want to try to fool people into believing certain things without respect to whether it's true. There's no need for trickery. Just make rules that make sense, and then enforce them. Look at it as a pro-active step with an eye on the future. It takes time for new rules to take hold and become the new 'norm'. What would people have thought if the USPA introduced required canopy training and focus on landing patterns back in 1995? Everyone would have said they were crazy, but a need for those things did indeed arise, and the USPA took action about a decade too late. Anyone happy with that situation? Anyone feel like repeating it? Maybe be 'take a chance' and try to stay out in front of things this time around.Quote I think you miss the point. 2k openings are perfectly safe when performed by properly qualified jumpers using appropriate equipment, so it would be overkill and not logical to outlaw doing it for those people. USPA obviously thinks it's not safe for "A" and "B" license holders to dump at 2k, so they have a rule against it. I'm not sure how that isn't working in your mind. There are many many situations where a 2k deployment is perfectly acceptable. A clear and pull from 2,000 feet affords as much reaction time to take emergency procedures as a terminal deployment at 2.5k, so using your logic we would have to raise the minimum even higher than 2.5k if the jumper is at the end of a long skydive vs the beginning of a short one. If you want to argue that 2k is too low for everyone all the time, you could then argue for a 2.5k minimum for all. But here you argue that we have to slowly convince people to accept change, and there we part ways. Rules and laws change all the time. Break the new rule, get the new punishment. As I said in my reply to the original BOD meeting agenda survey, 2k is safe under certain conditions, so THAT should be the minimum for properly qualified jumpers. If 2k isn't safe under other conditions - like when a jumper has a long-sniveling canopy and an AAD, that should be addressed somewhere besides the BSR 's, like the "equipment recommendations" or "advanced progression" sections of the SIM.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #113 January 30, 2012 QuoteAre you saying that those people aren't qualified to dump at 2k because they have a "C" license but somehow just haven't been around long enough? If that what he was saying, I would agree. I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. I think you, too probably agree with that given your statement, "2k openings are perfectly safe when performed by properly qualified jumpers using appropriate equipment, " Given this, "As I said in my reply to the original BOD meeting agenda survey, 2k is safe under certain conditions, so THAT should be the minimum for properly qualified jumpers", we'd now have to set some criteria to determine 'properly qualified' jumpers and, IMO, simple license level doesn't do an adequate job of it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 370 #114 January 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteAre you saying that those people aren't qualified to dump at 2k because they have a "C" license but somehow just haven't been around long enough? If that what he was saying, I would agree. I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. I think you, too probably agree with that given your statement, "2k openings are perfectly safe when performed by properly qualified jumpers using appropriate equipment, " Given this, "As I said in my reply to the original BOD meeting agenda survey, 2k is safe under certain conditions, so THAT should be the minimum for properly qualified jumpers", we'd now have to set some criteria to determine 'properly qualified' jumpers and, IMO, simple license level doesn't do an adequate job of it. Pops, I agree with you on all of the above. My problem isn't with re-evaluating our current minimums vs license or experience level, it's with raising the minimums for everyone on every jump. There are clearly jumps and jumpers that are perfectly safe doing 2k deployments, so it would seem to me that we need to address specifics like sniveling canopies somewhere besides the BSR's, and should evaluate the experience issue on its own.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,621 #115 January 30, 2012 By the time someone gets a "D" license they should be knowledgeable enough about the sport to make their own decisions... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #116 January 30, 2012 Quote By the time someone gets a "D" license they should be knowledgeable enough about the sport to make their own decisions Yep. "Should be" is the operative phrase.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JerryBaumchen 1,046 #117 January 30, 2012 Hi pops, Quote I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems Since you've been in the sport for 99 years, you should remember that at one time long, long ago a 'D" was 200 freefalls and they could open at 1800 ft. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 370 #118 January 30, 2012 Quote ...at one time long, long ago a 'D" was 200 freefalls and they could open at 1800 ft. It wasn't dangerous back then. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #119 January 30, 2012 Quote Hi pops, Quote I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems Since you've been in the sport for 99 years, you should remember that at one time long, long ago a 'D" was 200 freefalls and they could open at 1800 ft. JerryBaumchen Rats! Chuck beat me to it. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crotalus01 0 #120 January 30, 2012 QuoteI don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. Why not? Do you not have faith in the training people receive? As pointed out, 200 jumps used to be a D license. To me its pretty simple - a malfunction where you deployed at 4K you might be able to look at it for a second, maybe try something to fix it (depending on what it is). A malfunction where you deployed at 2K or under needs to go. Your hard deck is your hard deck, regardless of what altitude the malfunction starts at. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #121 January 31, 2012 I'm not sure if I should be telling a young jumper this if your listed jump numbers are correct. I don't want to give you ideas that it's OK to bust your current limits on anything. Ah, but you'll learn these things sooner or later, I'm sure...if you keep learning from the book and from others. QuoteI don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. QuoteWhy not? Do you not have faith in the training people receive? Well, you can train 'til you're blue in the face. It doesn't guarantee that the trainee will actually perform as they are trained. Many do, some don't. You should know that already. QuoteAs pointed out, 200 jumps used to be a D license. Pointless in the big scheme of things. QuoteTo me its pretty simple - a malfunction where you deployed at 4K you might be able to look at it for a second, maybe try something to fix it (depending on what it is). True enough...except that you are now talking in terms of time as opposed to altitude. "Try something" is an indicator that one may not really know what the proper thing to do really is. QuoteA malfunction where you deployed at 2K or under needs to go. Not true....depending, of course, on the mal. Some of them are no-brainers at any altitude. When you gain some more time in sport and some more experience, you'll understand high-speed and low speed and how much altitude it normally takes the make things right for the mal you're trying to deal with...and you'll know when to recognize it's not working out as you'd like when it's really time to go. You'll learn to recognize that there are no hard and fast lines drawn in the sand and that there are variables involved in all of it. You'll learn about those variables and how they affect your actions....or better yet, how your actions affect those variables. QuoteYour hard deck is your hard deck, regardless of what altitude the malfunction starts at. True enough....kind of. On paper, yes. In reality, maybe not. In reality. you'll (hopefully) do whatever it takes to save your butt regardless of hard deck lines in the sand. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm advocating "wait until you are at minimum altitude to act". Not saying that at all. I am saying that in real life it happens that way sometimes and you should know how to act if and when it does. Again, 200 jumps doesn't guarantee that the trainee will actually perform as they are trained. Many do, some don't.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #122 January 31, 2012 >I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude >problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. I know a few people with 1000 jumps that I'm not sure could handle a low cutaway. The "experience handling EPs already" comment is an interesting one. I've often thought there was a lot of value in doing an intentional cutaway as part of one's advanced training (say for a D license.) Some tandem manufacturers already require it, and it certainly prepares you for both the feeling of a cutaway, the timing required, how your harness shifts after you go back into freefall, the speed of reserve deployment at low speeds etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 370 #123 January 31, 2012 Quote>I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude >problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. I know a few people with 1000 jumps that I'm not sure could handle a low cutaway. The "experience handling EPs already" comment is an interesting one. I've often thought there was a lot of value in doing an intentional cutaway as part of one's advanced training (say for a D license.) Some tandem manufacturers already require it, and it certainly prepares you for both the feeling of a cutaway, the timing required, how your harness shifts after you go back into freefall, the speed of reserve deployment at low speeds etc. I wouldn't disagree with that. I remember when I started jumping in the mid 80's there were several older guys that always had mals just as their reserve repacks were due. Oddly, they always seemed to happen on their last jump of the day on Sunday afternoon.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #124 January 31, 2012 QuoteThe "experience handling EPs already" comment is an interesting one. I've often thought there was a lot of value in doing an intentional cutaway as part of one's advanced training (say for a D license.) I wish it was required. I'd be willing to bet that it would save a few lives. They could do a hop-n-pop at say 4, cutaway and deploy the main by say 2-3."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crotalus01 0 #125 January 31, 2012 Fair enough Pops. My numbers are close and you are not giving me ideas about busting anything. I have 3 cutaways in 200ish jumps, 2 low speed and one very low high speed. I simply dont think the number of jumps has that much to do with how a person will perform when dealing with a cutaway at any altitude (I know in my case I performed better on my second, and even better on my third but that had to do with familiarity of chopping, NOT my total jump numbers). Hell, one of my friends has over 2K jumps with no cutaways and he told me he didnt know how he would perform if/when he had his first malfunction. Outside of that small point, we are in total agreement As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
popsjumper 2 #113 January 30, 2012 QuoteAre you saying that those people aren't qualified to dump at 2k because they have a "C" license but somehow just haven't been around long enough? If that what he was saying, I would agree. I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. I think you, too probably agree with that given your statement, "2k openings are perfectly safe when performed by properly qualified jumpers using appropriate equipment, " Given this, "As I said in my reply to the original BOD meeting agenda survey, 2k is safe under certain conditions, so THAT should be the minimum for properly qualified jumpers", we'd now have to set some criteria to determine 'properly qualified' jumpers and, IMO, simple license level doesn't do an adequate job of it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #114 January 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteAre you saying that those people aren't qualified to dump at 2k because they have a "C" license but somehow just haven't been around long enough? If that what he was saying, I would agree. I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. I think you, too probably agree with that given your statement, "2k openings are perfectly safe when performed by properly qualified jumpers using appropriate equipment, " Given this, "As I said in my reply to the original BOD meeting agenda survey, 2k is safe under certain conditions, so THAT should be the minimum for properly qualified jumpers", we'd now have to set some criteria to determine 'properly qualified' jumpers and, IMO, simple license level doesn't do an adequate job of it. Pops, I agree with you on all of the above. My problem isn't with re-evaluating our current minimums vs license or experience level, it's with raising the minimums for everyone on every jump. There are clearly jumps and jumpers that are perfectly safe doing 2k deployments, so it would seem to me that we need to address specifics like sniveling canopies somewhere besides the BSR's, and should evaluate the experience issue on its own.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #115 January 30, 2012 By the time someone gets a "D" license they should be knowledgeable enough about the sport to make their own decisions... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #116 January 30, 2012 Quote By the time someone gets a "D" license they should be knowledgeable enough about the sport to make their own decisions Yep. "Should be" is the operative phrase.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,046 #117 January 30, 2012 Hi pops, Quote I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems Since you've been in the sport for 99 years, you should remember that at one time long, long ago a 'D" was 200 freefalls and they could open at 1800 ft. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #118 January 30, 2012 Quote ...at one time long, long ago a 'D" was 200 freefalls and they could open at 1800 ft. It wasn't dangerous back then. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #119 January 30, 2012 Quote Hi pops, Quote I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems Since you've been in the sport for 99 years, you should remember that at one time long, long ago a 'D" was 200 freefalls and they could open at 1800 ft. JerryBaumchen Rats! Chuck beat me to it. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crotalus01 0 #120 January 30, 2012 QuoteI don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. Why not? Do you not have faith in the training people receive? As pointed out, 200 jumps used to be a D license. To me its pretty simple - a malfunction where you deployed at 4K you might be able to look at it for a second, maybe try something to fix it (depending on what it is). A malfunction where you deployed at 2K or under needs to go. Your hard deck is your hard deck, regardless of what altitude the malfunction starts at. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #121 January 31, 2012 I'm not sure if I should be telling a young jumper this if your listed jump numbers are correct. I don't want to give you ideas that it's OK to bust your current limits on anything. Ah, but you'll learn these things sooner or later, I'm sure...if you keep learning from the book and from others. QuoteI don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. QuoteWhy not? Do you not have faith in the training people receive? Well, you can train 'til you're blue in the face. It doesn't guarantee that the trainee will actually perform as they are trained. Many do, some don't. You should know that already. QuoteAs pointed out, 200 jumps used to be a D license. Pointless in the big scheme of things. QuoteTo me its pretty simple - a malfunction where you deployed at 4K you might be able to look at it for a second, maybe try something to fix it (depending on what it is). True enough...except that you are now talking in terms of time as opposed to altitude. "Try something" is an indicator that one may not really know what the proper thing to do really is. QuoteA malfunction where you deployed at 2K or under needs to go. Not true....depending, of course, on the mal. Some of them are no-brainers at any altitude. When you gain some more time in sport and some more experience, you'll understand high-speed and low speed and how much altitude it normally takes the make things right for the mal you're trying to deal with...and you'll know when to recognize it's not working out as you'd like when it's really time to go. You'll learn to recognize that there are no hard and fast lines drawn in the sand and that there are variables involved in all of it. You'll learn about those variables and how they affect your actions....or better yet, how your actions affect those variables. QuoteYour hard deck is your hard deck, regardless of what altitude the malfunction starts at. True enough....kind of. On paper, yes. In reality, maybe not. In reality. you'll (hopefully) do whatever it takes to save your butt regardless of hard deck lines in the sand. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm advocating "wait until you are at minimum altitude to act". Not saying that at all. I am saying that in real life it happens that way sometimes and you should know how to act if and when it does. Again, 200 jumps doesn't guarantee that the trainee will actually perform as they are trained. Many do, some don't.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #122 January 31, 2012 >I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude >problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. I know a few people with 1000 jumps that I'm not sure could handle a low cutaway. The "experience handling EPs already" comment is an interesting one. I've often thought there was a lot of value in doing an intentional cutaway as part of one's advanced training (say for a D license.) Some tandem manufacturers already require it, and it certainly prepares you for both the feeling of a cutaway, the timing required, how your harness shifts after you go back into freefall, the speed of reserve deployment at low speeds etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #123 January 31, 2012 Quote>I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude >problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. I know a few people with 1000 jumps that I'm not sure could handle a low cutaway. The "experience handling EPs already" comment is an interesting one. I've often thought there was a lot of value in doing an intentional cutaway as part of one's advanced training (say for a D license.) Some tandem manufacturers already require it, and it certainly prepares you for both the feeling of a cutaway, the timing required, how your harness shifts after you go back into freefall, the speed of reserve deployment at low speeds etc. I wouldn't disagree with that. I remember when I started jumping in the mid 80's there were several older guys that always had mals just as their reserve repacks were due. Oddly, they always seemed to happen on their last jump of the day on Sunday afternoon.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #124 January 31, 2012 QuoteThe "experience handling EPs already" comment is an interesting one. I've often thought there was a lot of value in doing an intentional cutaway as part of one's advanced training (say for a D license.) I wish it was required. I'd be willing to bet that it would save a few lives. They could do a hop-n-pop at say 4, cutaway and deploy the main by say 2-3."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crotalus01 0 #125 January 31, 2012 Fair enough Pops. My numbers are close and you are not giving me ideas about busting anything. I have 3 cutaways in 200ish jumps, 2 low speed and one very low high speed. I simply dont think the number of jumps has that much to do with how a person will perform when dealing with a cutaway at any altitude (I know in my case I performed better on my second, and even better on my third but that had to do with familiarity of chopping, NOT my total jump numbers). Hell, one of my friends has over 2K jumps with no cutaways and he told me he didnt know how he would perform if/when he had his first malfunction. Outside of that small point, we are in total agreement As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
