smulder 0 #1 March 30, 2011 I'm new to skydiving and would like to know what would be a good altimeter to buy for a student? ThanksGET BUSY LIVING OR GET BUSY DYING. WHAT'S THIS WE SHIT WHITEMAN? SHE LOOKS FAST TRUMAN. YEAH, IT'S THE STRIPES Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #2 March 30, 2011 This... http://forum.altimaster.com/content.php?145-N3A-ProductMuff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #3 March 30, 2011 QuoteThis... http://forum.altimaster.com/content.php?145-N3A-Product Absolutely NOT that! I'm surprised at you. To smulder... This: http://forum.altimaster.com/content.php?167-Galaxy-Product-Page&s=c8e1ebdce741550985ab3bfc832ee6f6My 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
labrys 0 #4 March 30, 2011 QuoteAbsolutely NOT that! I'm with Pops. This is a horrible suggestion. It's not even a visual in addition to the other distractions it creates.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #5 March 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteThis... http://forum.altimaster.com/content.php?145-N3A-Product Absolutely NOT that! I'm surprised at you. To smulder... This: http://forum.altimaster.com/content.php?167-Galaxy-Product-Page&s=c8e1ebdce741550985ab3bfc832ee6f6 Wanna know why I dont care? (hint: type "first" and "altimeter" in the search bar and you'll come across my real answer somewhere in the thousands of post's regarding this very subject) And anyway, The N3 Audio is a wicked cool alti when it comes to audibles. ETA- Here's my response regarding the alti galaxy. Quote In Reply To For a first alti, suggest the Alti III Galaxy. No batteries and bomb proof. +1 I understand the whole "analog can stick" argument, but I will give you my personal experience with one. Shortly after graduating AFF I bought a Galaxy (jump #8 IIRC). Throughout the time I've owned this altimeter (yes I still use it) I have dropped it a few times on concrete, had to clean the mud/dirt out of it from PLF landings, banged it against the a/c multiple times (usually during climbout and exit), have had it banged on by others in freefall, been stepped on a few times, and most recently it spent the night submerged in rain water (at LP when I left it in my upturned helmet outside overnight). After all that it still works very well, and now it is used on my mudflap for wingsuiting. I'm sure others haven't been so lucky, but mine has NEVER failed. Go with one. You'll be happy you did. Oh yeah, and it doesn't need batteries to work. Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #6 March 30, 2011 QuoteTo smulder... This: http://forum.altimaster.com/content.php?167-Galaxy-Product-Page&s=c8e1ebdce741550985ab3bfc832ee6f6 Solid product, highly recommend.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #7 March 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteThis... http://forum.altimaster.com/content.php?145-N3A-Product Absolutely NOT that! I'm surprised at you. To smulder... This: http://forum.altimaster.com/content.php?167-Galaxy-Product-Page&s=c8e1ebdce741550985ab3bfc832ee6f6 Pop, this would proably be better. Sparky http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/mount22.jpgMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #8 March 30, 2011 QuoteWanna know why I dont care? If you don't care or you're annoyed, either say so to the poster or STFU rather than give a new person bad advice. That's just fucked up.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hchunter614 0 #9 March 30, 2011 While a student your DZ should provide you with all of the gear that you need including an altimeter. After you graduate you'll need your own and most instructors will suggest that you buy an analog one like the one posted above because it is what you are used to using and you will still be developing your sight picture (knowing your altitude by what the ground looks like). The digital altimeters have batteries in them so they can fail at any time. Yes any altimeter can fail but the analogs are more dependable. Once you get 100 jumps or so under your belt then you can consider going to a digital altimeter. The main reason many people use them is because they usually also contain a logging function that allows you to record your jumps. This funcationality is also built into several of the audiables. Also don't introduce more than one new thing at a time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #10 March 31, 2011 Your post is good, Curtis. I'd just like to add a little clarification for the OP. The suggestions that the device Millertime posted is a bad idea are not because it's a digital altimeter, They're because it doesn't have a visual altitude display... as in you can't look at it and see your altitude. It's an audible alarm that's designed to be integrated with an MP3 player. At best, it's worthless for a novice who doesn't already have a visual altimeter.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snowflake 0 #11 March 31, 2011 QuoteWhile a student your DZ should provide you with all of the gear that you need including an altimeter. After you graduate you'll need your own and most instructors will suggest that you buy an analog one like the one posted above because it is what you are used to using and you will still be developing your sight picture (knowing your altitude by what the ground looks like). The digital altimeters have batteries in them so they can fail at any time. Yes any altimeter can fail but the analogs are more dependable. Once you get 100 jumps or so under your belt then you can consider going to a digital altimeter. The main reason many people use them is because they usually also contain a logging function that allows you to record your jumps. This funcationality is also built into several of the audiables. Also don't introduce more than one new thing at a time. I don't believe it's that black and white. It depends on how the person is wired. I can't stand analog altimeters because I had to look at it too long to get hundreds of feet. One look at my digitude and I knew the altitude as presented to me. My DZO/AFFI let me try his after I complained about analog altimeters and how my brain didn't process the information they provided me fast enough. One jump with a digital was all it took. To me it was like night and day. Like I said I think it's all in how an individual is wired. What works for some may not work for others. I am leaving considerations like failure rate out of the equation and focusing on how fast your brain can process the visual information an altimeter provides. Your mileage may vary.....everybody is different. (edit to add I started jumping a digital right off of student status and an audible around jump 200.)Quote Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #12 March 31, 2011 Quote Pop, this would proably be better. Sparky http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/mount22.jpg What was I saying about "old school"? My very first thought was your link was going to be one out of an airplane. Surprise, surprise! 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 popsjumper 2 #13 March 31, 2011 I can understand different strokes for different folks. For me, it's much easier to glance at that clock face that I've been familiar with since early childhood. I can easily tell, say, 42 from 43 with just a glance. The digital display gives me problems because I have to stop what I'm doing and actually focus on the display to actually read numbers. I'd bet, in reality, that the time you took to focus on and read the analogue was not much different than the time it took you to focus on and read the digital display. Different strokes.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 airtwardo 6 #14 March 31, 2011 Quote I can understand different strokes for different folks. For me, it's much easier to glance at that clock face that I've been familiar with since early childhood. I can easily tell, say, 42 from 43 with just a glance. The digital display gives me problems because I have to stop what I'm doing and actually focus on the display to actually read numbers. I'd bet, in reality, that the time you took to focus on and read the analogue was not much different than the time it took you to focus on and read the digital display. Different strokes. It's because your brain understands the speedometer on a '53 Oldsmobile quicker than the Warp Speed digital display on the Enterprise! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites theonlyski 3 #15 March 31, 2011 Quote Quote I can understand different strokes for different folks. For me, it's much easier to glance at that clock face that I've been familiar with since early childhood. I can easily tell, say, 42 from 43 with just a glance. The digital display gives me problems because I have to stop what I'm doing and actually focus on the display to actually read numbers. I'd bet, in reality, that the time you took to focus on and read the analogue was not much different than the time it took you to focus on and read the digital display. Different strokes. It's because your brain understands the speedometer on a '53 Oldsmobile quicker than the Warp Speed digital display on the Enterprise! +1 I can read and identify my Neptune WAY faster than I can look at an analog and determine what altitude I am at. (well, I could till I cracked it last Saturday... New one will be here today!) I guess I just grew up looking at analog clocks, once digitals came out, I started using them way more often."I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DocPop 1 #16 March 31, 2011 I bought a Suunto Vector as my first alti, and did a couple of jumps with it next to an analog to make sure I could read it at a glance. When I was happy with that, I got rid of the analog. One other reason I don't like analogs it that they are useless for flying accurate landing patterns as they are just too inaccurate under 1000 feet."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #17 March 31, 2011 QuoteI bought a Suunto Vector as my first alti, and did a couple of jumps with it next to an analog to make sure I could read it at a glance. When I was happy with that, I got rid of the analog. One other reason I don't like analogs it that they are useless for flying accurate landing patterns as they are just too inaccurate under 1000 feet. Unless you are doing extreme high performance landings 25 feet on the altimeter isn't going to mean a whole lot. Landing is a combination of art & science, and remember performance varies with such things as temperature and LZ elevation. Landing patters aren't set in stone as far as inch increments, you need to be fluid and make constant adjustments, keeping your head on a swivel is infinitely more important that being nuts on to the foot while turning on base to final. Do yourself ( and everybody else) a favor and don't be looking at your altimeter too much below 1000'. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites theonlyski 3 #18 March 31, 2011 QuoteDo yourself ( and everybody else) a favor and don't be looking at your altimeter too much below 1000'. Unless I'm going for a target landing, I usually won't. I just find a safe place to land and set up for it with my eyeballs... Been cut off way too many times to just fly a straight pattern and set altitudes..."I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DocPop 1 #19 March 31, 2011 Quote Unless you are doing extreme high performance landings 25 feet on the altimeter isn't going to mean a whole lot. Landing is a combination of art & science, and remember performance varies with such things as temperature and LZ elevation. Landing patters aren't set in stone as far as inch increments, you need to be fluid and make constant adjustments, keeping your head on a swivel is infinitely more important that being nuts on to the foot while turning on base to final. Do yourself ( and everybody else) a favor and don't be looking at your altimeter too much below 1000'. Thanks for the input, but that is in direct contradiction of what I have been told on multiple canopy courses. Of course, awareness of canopy traffic is of paramount importance, but flying a predictable, repeatable pattern is also a valuable skill. To do that I have a plan for every flight of exactly what altitude I plan to be over what point on the ground. Do I always hit those points? Hell no! But without a plan/goal I would not know how to improve next time. I would say that the error on an analog is MUCH higher than 25 feet due to the insensitivity of the display and they are therefore not all that useful for canopy work."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #20 March 31, 2011 Quote[ Thanks for the input, but that is in direct contradiction of what I have been told on multiple canopy courses. So, what were you taught? Were you given a written version for reference? Or is it your recollection of the material? It is sometimes true that what one gets from being taught is not always what the teacher thought he was teaching. I am not saying that is the case here, but that's why I am interested in verifiable reference materials. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DocPop 1 #21 March 31, 2011 QuoteQuote[ Thanks for the input, but that is in direct contradiction of what I have been told on multiple canopy courses. So, what were you taught? Were you given a written version for reference? Or is it your recollection of the material? It is sometimes true that what one gets from being taught is not always what the teacher thought he was teaching. I am not saying that is the case here, but that's why I am interested in verifiable reference materials. None of the courses I attended (2 x Luigi Cani and 2 x Flight-1) provided written course notes, but the common theme was to plan a pattern by having EXACT goals for checkpoints in the pattern, ie. start of downwind, downwind-to-base and base-to final. The plan is to hit precise points over the ground at precise altitudes. By doing this time and again the pilot gets an idea of how the canopy flies and how to move these checkpoints on the ground to adjust for wind. A good reference is Germain's "The D Point", here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=725, where he states: QuoteThis method assumes something that many canopy pilots do not have: a trustworthy altimeter. A standard dial-type, analog altimeter is not sufficient to give us the kind of accuracy we are looking for. Even the digital dial-type is not usually graded in such a way that we can distinguish units of one hundred feet or less. These are freefall altimeters. For the precise data required by today’s canopy pilots, we need digital altimeters with digital read-outs."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #22 March 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote[ Thanks for the input, but that is in direct contradiction of what I have been told on multiple canopy courses. So, what were you taught? Were you given a written version for reference? Or is it your recollection of the material? It is sometimes true that what one gets from being taught is not always what the teacher thought he was teaching. I am not saying that is the case here, but that's why I am interested in verifiable reference materials. None of the courses I attended (2 x Luigi Cani and 2 x Flight-1) provided written course notes, but the common theme was to plan a pattern by having EXACT goals for checkpoints in the pattern, ie. start of downwind, downwind-to-base and base-to final. The plan is to hit precise points over the ground at precise altitudes. By doing this time and again the pilot gets an idea of how the canopy flies and how to move these checkpoints on the ground to adjust for wind. A good reference is Germain's "The D Point", here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=725, where he states: QuoteThis method assumes something that many canopy pilots do not have: a trustworthy altimeter. A standard dial-type, analog altimeter is not sufficient to give us the kind of accuracy we are looking for. Even the digital dial-type is not usually graded in such a way that we can distinguish units of one hundred feet or less. These are freefall altimeters. For the precise data required by today’s canopy pilots, we need digital altimeters with digital read-outs. ~again, I'm guessing that is in preparation for eventual high performance landings...that or the instructors are gearing the material toward the technical only aspects of landing a canopy forgoing the 'stick & rudder' experience that time and repetition grant one. IF you @ 200 jumps feel you need a digital altimeter to land your canopy, far be it for me to disagree with you...to others, keep in mind competition accuracy jumpers don't rely on instruments to dead center a disk, and I can't remember the last time I even looked at an altimeter once I was open. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kuai43 7 #23 March 31, 2011 Quote Quote The digital display gives me problems because I have to stop what I'm doing and actually focus on the display to actually read numbers. Different strokes. It's because your brain understands the speedometer on a '53 Oldsmobile quicker than the Warp Speed digital display on the Enterprise! This might be better for those of you who aren't too comfortable with the digital age... Every fight is a food fight if you're a cannibal Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man. - Anthony Burgess Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #24 March 31, 2011 QuoteNone of the courses I attended (2 x Luigi Cani and 2 x Flight-1) provided written course notes, but the common theme was to plan a pattern by having EXACT goals for checkpoints in the pattern, ie. start of downwind, downwind-to-base and base-to final. It should be noted that it works great only if you are doing solos. When in traffic it is MUCH more important to look around than get the perfect swoop."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 riggerpaul 1 #25 March 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote[ Thanks for the input, but that is in direct contradiction of what I have been told on multiple canopy courses. So, what were you taught? Were you given a written version for reference? Or is it your recollection of the material? It is sometimes true that what one gets from being taught is not always what the teacher thought he was teaching. I am not saying that is the case here, but that's why I am interested in verifiable reference materials. None of the courses I attended (2 x Luigi Cani and 2 x Flight-1) provided written course notes, but the common theme was to plan a pattern by having EXACT goals for checkpoints in the pattern, ie. start of downwind, downwind-to-base and base-to final. The plan is to hit precise points over the ground at precise altitudes. By doing this time and again the pilot gets an idea of how the canopy flies and how to move these checkpoints on the ground to adjust for wind. A good reference is Germain's "The D Point", here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=725, where he states: QuoteThis method assumes something that many canopy pilots do not have: a trustworthy altimeter. A standard dial-type, analog altimeter is not sufficient to give us the kind of accuracy we are looking for. Even the digital dial-type is not usually graded in such a way that we can distinguish units of one hundred feet or less. These are freefall altimeters. For the precise data required by today’s canopy pilots, we need digital altimeters with digital read-outs. ~again, I'm guessing that is in preparation for eventual high performance landings...that or the instructors are gearing the material toward the technical only aspects of landing a canopy forgoing the 'stick & rudder' experience that time and repetition grant one. IF you @ 200 jumps feel you need a digital altimeter to land your canopy, far be it for me to disagree with you...to others, keep in mind competition accuracy jumpers don't rely on instruments to dead center a disk, and I can't remember the last time I even looked at an altimeter once I was open. +1 When you are just trying to fit into the pattern with a bunch of other people, precise turn point altitudes and positions will often be at the expense of harmony with the actual stuff going on around you. So, like airtwardo, I must presume that the precise pattern work of which you speak is on the path to swooping. Swooping, as we all know, is supposed to have a separation (time and/or place) from the "regular" pattern. Please don't try to mix the two. (Oh, but unlike airtwardo, I do glance from time to time at my analog altimeter, just to verify that I am doing what I thought I would. If the altimeter says I am not, that's okay. Fitting into the world around me is more important than what the altimeter says. Mostly the altimeter input is like a calibration check on my eyes, and a quick glance is all I need.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 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
popsjumper 2 #12 March 31, 2011 Quote Pop, this would proably be better. Sparky http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/mount22.jpg What was I saying about "old school"? My very first thought was your link was going to be one out of an airplane. Surprise, surprise! 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
popsjumper 2 #13 March 31, 2011 I can understand different strokes for different folks. For me, it's much easier to glance at that clock face that I've been familiar with since early childhood. I can easily tell, say, 42 from 43 with just a glance. The digital display gives me problems because I have to stop what I'm doing and actually focus on the display to actually read numbers. I'd bet, in reality, that the time you took to focus on and read the analogue was not much different than the time it took you to focus on and read the digital display. Different strokes.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
airtwardo 6 #14 March 31, 2011 Quote I can understand different strokes for different folks. For me, it's much easier to glance at that clock face that I've been familiar with since early childhood. I can easily tell, say, 42 from 43 with just a glance. The digital display gives me problems because I have to stop what I'm doing and actually focus on the display to actually read numbers. I'd bet, in reality, that the time you took to focus on and read the analogue was not much different than the time it took you to focus on and read the digital display. Different strokes. It's because your brain understands the speedometer on a '53 Oldsmobile quicker than the Warp Speed digital display on the Enterprise! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #15 March 31, 2011 Quote Quote I can understand different strokes for different folks. For me, it's much easier to glance at that clock face that I've been familiar with since early childhood. I can easily tell, say, 42 from 43 with just a glance. The digital display gives me problems because I have to stop what I'm doing and actually focus on the display to actually read numbers. I'd bet, in reality, that the time you took to focus on and read the analogue was not much different than the time it took you to focus on and read the digital display. Different strokes. It's because your brain understands the speedometer on a '53 Oldsmobile quicker than the Warp Speed digital display on the Enterprise! +1 I can read and identify my Neptune WAY faster than I can look at an analog and determine what altitude I am at. (well, I could till I cracked it last Saturday... New one will be here today!) I guess I just grew up looking at analog clocks, once digitals came out, I started using them way more often."I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DocPop 1 #16 March 31, 2011 I bought a Suunto Vector as my first alti, and did a couple of jumps with it next to an analog to make sure I could read it at a glance. When I was happy with that, I got rid of the analog. One other reason I don't like analogs it that they are useless for flying accurate landing patterns as they are just too inaccurate under 1000 feet."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #17 March 31, 2011 QuoteI bought a Suunto Vector as my first alti, and did a couple of jumps with it next to an analog to make sure I could read it at a glance. When I was happy with that, I got rid of the analog. One other reason I don't like analogs it that they are useless for flying accurate landing patterns as they are just too inaccurate under 1000 feet. Unless you are doing extreme high performance landings 25 feet on the altimeter isn't going to mean a whole lot. Landing is a combination of art & science, and remember performance varies with such things as temperature and LZ elevation. Landing patters aren't set in stone as far as inch increments, you need to be fluid and make constant adjustments, keeping your head on a swivel is infinitely more important that being nuts on to the foot while turning on base to final. Do yourself ( and everybody else) a favor and don't be looking at your altimeter too much below 1000'. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #18 March 31, 2011 QuoteDo yourself ( and everybody else) a favor and don't be looking at your altimeter too much below 1000'. Unless I'm going for a target landing, I usually won't. I just find a safe place to land and set up for it with my eyeballs... Been cut off way too many times to just fly a straight pattern and set altitudes..."I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DocPop 1 #19 March 31, 2011 Quote Unless you are doing extreme high performance landings 25 feet on the altimeter isn't going to mean a whole lot. Landing is a combination of art & science, and remember performance varies with such things as temperature and LZ elevation. Landing patters aren't set in stone as far as inch increments, you need to be fluid and make constant adjustments, keeping your head on a swivel is infinitely more important that being nuts on to the foot while turning on base to final. Do yourself ( and everybody else) a favor and don't be looking at your altimeter too much below 1000'. Thanks for the input, but that is in direct contradiction of what I have been told on multiple canopy courses. Of course, awareness of canopy traffic is of paramount importance, but flying a predictable, repeatable pattern is also a valuable skill. To do that I have a plan for every flight of exactly what altitude I plan to be over what point on the ground. Do I always hit those points? Hell no! But without a plan/goal I would not know how to improve next time. I would say that the error on an analog is MUCH higher than 25 feet due to the insensitivity of the display and they are therefore not all that useful for canopy work."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #20 March 31, 2011 Quote[ Thanks for the input, but that is in direct contradiction of what I have been told on multiple canopy courses. So, what were you taught? Were you given a written version for reference? Or is it your recollection of the material? It is sometimes true that what one gets from being taught is not always what the teacher thought he was teaching. I am not saying that is the case here, but that's why I am interested in verifiable reference materials. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DocPop 1 #21 March 31, 2011 QuoteQuote[ Thanks for the input, but that is in direct contradiction of what I have been told on multiple canopy courses. So, what were you taught? Were you given a written version for reference? Or is it your recollection of the material? It is sometimes true that what one gets from being taught is not always what the teacher thought he was teaching. I am not saying that is the case here, but that's why I am interested in verifiable reference materials. None of the courses I attended (2 x Luigi Cani and 2 x Flight-1) provided written course notes, but the common theme was to plan a pattern by having EXACT goals for checkpoints in the pattern, ie. start of downwind, downwind-to-base and base-to final. The plan is to hit precise points over the ground at precise altitudes. By doing this time and again the pilot gets an idea of how the canopy flies and how to move these checkpoints on the ground to adjust for wind. A good reference is Germain's "The D Point", here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=725, where he states: QuoteThis method assumes something that many canopy pilots do not have: a trustworthy altimeter. A standard dial-type, analog altimeter is not sufficient to give us the kind of accuracy we are looking for. Even the digital dial-type is not usually graded in such a way that we can distinguish units of one hundred feet or less. These are freefall altimeters. For the precise data required by today’s canopy pilots, we need digital altimeters with digital read-outs."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #22 March 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote[ Thanks for the input, but that is in direct contradiction of what I have been told on multiple canopy courses. So, what were you taught? Were you given a written version for reference? Or is it your recollection of the material? It is sometimes true that what one gets from being taught is not always what the teacher thought he was teaching. I am not saying that is the case here, but that's why I am interested in verifiable reference materials. None of the courses I attended (2 x Luigi Cani and 2 x Flight-1) provided written course notes, but the common theme was to plan a pattern by having EXACT goals for checkpoints in the pattern, ie. start of downwind, downwind-to-base and base-to final. The plan is to hit precise points over the ground at precise altitudes. By doing this time and again the pilot gets an idea of how the canopy flies and how to move these checkpoints on the ground to adjust for wind. A good reference is Germain's "The D Point", here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=725, where he states: QuoteThis method assumes something that many canopy pilots do not have: a trustworthy altimeter. A standard dial-type, analog altimeter is not sufficient to give us the kind of accuracy we are looking for. Even the digital dial-type is not usually graded in such a way that we can distinguish units of one hundred feet or less. These are freefall altimeters. For the precise data required by today’s canopy pilots, we need digital altimeters with digital read-outs. ~again, I'm guessing that is in preparation for eventual high performance landings...that or the instructors are gearing the material toward the technical only aspects of landing a canopy forgoing the 'stick & rudder' experience that time and repetition grant one. IF you @ 200 jumps feel you need a digital altimeter to land your canopy, far be it for me to disagree with you...to others, keep in mind competition accuracy jumpers don't rely on instruments to dead center a disk, and I can't remember the last time I even looked at an altimeter once I was open. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kuai43 7 #23 March 31, 2011 Quote Quote The digital display gives me problems because I have to stop what I'm doing and actually focus on the display to actually read numbers. Different strokes. It's because your brain understands the speedometer on a '53 Oldsmobile quicker than the Warp Speed digital display on the Enterprise! This might be better for those of you who aren't too comfortable with the digital age... Every fight is a food fight if you're a cannibal Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man. - Anthony Burgess Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #24 March 31, 2011 QuoteNone of the courses I attended (2 x Luigi Cani and 2 x Flight-1) provided written course notes, but the common theme was to plan a pattern by having EXACT goals for checkpoints in the pattern, ie. start of downwind, downwind-to-base and base-to final. It should be noted that it works great only if you are doing solos. When in traffic it is MUCH more important to look around than get the perfect swoop."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
riggerpaul 1 #25 March 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote[ Thanks for the input, but that is in direct contradiction of what I have been told on multiple canopy courses. So, what were you taught? Were you given a written version for reference? Or is it your recollection of the material? It is sometimes true that what one gets from being taught is not always what the teacher thought he was teaching. I am not saying that is the case here, but that's why I am interested in verifiable reference materials. None of the courses I attended (2 x Luigi Cani and 2 x Flight-1) provided written course notes, but the common theme was to plan a pattern by having EXACT goals for checkpoints in the pattern, ie. start of downwind, downwind-to-base and base-to final. The plan is to hit precise points over the ground at precise altitudes. By doing this time and again the pilot gets an idea of how the canopy flies and how to move these checkpoints on the ground to adjust for wind. A good reference is Germain's "The D Point", here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=725, where he states: QuoteThis method assumes something that many canopy pilots do not have: a trustworthy altimeter. A standard dial-type, analog altimeter is not sufficient to give us the kind of accuracy we are looking for. Even the digital dial-type is not usually graded in such a way that we can distinguish units of one hundred feet or less. These are freefall altimeters. For the precise data required by today’s canopy pilots, we need digital altimeters with digital read-outs. ~again, I'm guessing that is in preparation for eventual high performance landings...that or the instructors are gearing the material toward the technical only aspects of landing a canopy forgoing the 'stick & rudder' experience that time and repetition grant one. IF you @ 200 jumps feel you need a digital altimeter to land your canopy, far be it for me to disagree with you...to others, keep in mind competition accuracy jumpers don't rely on instruments to dead center a disk, and I can't remember the last time I even looked at an altimeter once I was open. +1 When you are just trying to fit into the pattern with a bunch of other people, precise turn point altitudes and positions will often be at the expense of harmony with the actual stuff going on around you. So, like airtwardo, I must presume that the precise pattern work of which you speak is on the path to swooping. Swooping, as we all know, is supposed to have a separation (time and/or place) from the "regular" pattern. Please don't try to mix the two. (Oh, but unlike airtwardo, I do glance from time to time at my analog altimeter, just to verify that I am doing what I thought I would. If the altimeter says I am not, that's okay. Fitting into the world around me is more important than what the altimeter says. Mostly the altimeter input is like a calibration check on my eyes, and a quick glance is all I need.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
