Andy9o8 0 #101 January 4, 2011 Yes; there are many reasons why an employer quite properly shares in the liability for its employee's negligence, or even is a direct or partial cause of that negligence. (But out of respect for the forum, I don't want to divert a skydiving thread too far into that...) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 103 #102 January 4, 2011 Quote But combine an uncurrent jumper, older gear with poor pin protection, lack of backups in the form of AAD, RSL, audible altimeter etc and your odds of an incident go way up. Balls. The odds would go only very slightly up if at all. I could jump a B 4 with a cheapo and 24 foot reserve with no AAD, alti or RSL tomorrow, and survive. Easily. Just as I did in 1974. Many times. Not the exact same rig of course, and my chances of a landing injury are slightly higher because I'm quite a bit fatter than I used to be, but my 5 hours of PLF training should take care of that. I'd be a lot more concerned about some current hotshot dumping in my face at 4000 feet, or killing me at 50 feet off the deck doing his swoop.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kuai43 7 #103 January 4, 2011 Quote Quote But combine an uncurrent jumper, older gear with poor pin protection, lack of backups in the form of AAD, RSL, audible altimeter etc and your odds of an incident go way up. Balls. The odds would go only very slightly up if at all. I could jump a B 4 with a cheapo and 24 foot reserve with no AAD, alti or RSL tomorrow, and survive. Easily. Just as I did in 1974. Many times. Not the exact same rig of course, and my chances of a landing injury are slightly higher because I'm quite a bit fatter than I used to be, but my 5 hours of PLF training should take care of that. I'd be a lot more concerned about some current hotshot dumping in my face at 4000 feet, or killing me at 50 feet off the deck doing his swoop. Hear, hear! Well... except for the 'fatter' part. 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
vanair 0 #104 January 4, 2011 Ditto, mid 80s woodstock Conn. We had a non current jumper that had several hundred jumps come to jump after several years. Had his chest mount, PC, Capewell rig. We all had 3 rings etc. The DZO and I decided that probably the safest thing to do was to get him current and comfortable in the air, Then transition him to modern gear, which we did reasoning that in an emergency he would try to resort to his primary training. Had some disagreement from some other up jumpers looking at his gutter gear but it worked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #105 January 4, 2011 QuoteQuote But combine an uncurrent jumper, older gear with poor pin protection, lack of backups in the form of AAD, RSL, audible altimeter etc and your odds of an incident go way up. Balls. The odds would go only very slightly up if at all. I could jump a B 4 with a cheapo and 24 foot reserve with no AAD, alti or RSL tomorrow, and survive. Easily. Just as I did in 1974. Many times. Not the exact same rig of course, and my chances of a landing injury are slightly higher because I'm quite a bit fatter than I used to be, but my 5 hours of PLF training should take care of that. I'd be a lot more concerned about some current hotshot dumping in my face at 4000 feet, or killing me at 50 feet off the deck doing his swoop.[/reply_________________________________________ I could agree with Bill that the odds might go up a bit, but I certainly wouldn't say -way- up, so I agree with you too!If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skypuppy 1 #106 January 4, 2011 A 1980-circa Swift with a Pursuit main, round unmodified reserve, ROL deployment system and no AAD/RSL is absolutely less safe than a modern rig with an AAD, RSL and appropriately sized canopies. _____________________________________________ I cannot imagine anyone ever having an unmodified round reserve in a swift system -- let's not get carried away with hyperbole! The swifts came out with square reserves. And although modern rigs 'might' be safer than older ones, it's not really through addition of AADs and RSLs....If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,463 #107 January 4, 2011 >Balls. The odds would go only very slightly up if at all. Well, we have a difference of opinion then. Currency does matter. Good gear does matter. You may indeed think that you will never make any mistakes - you will never forget to pull, or will never have trouble finding your reserve handle, or will never hesitate during an off-heading opening when you find yourself facing someone. History has proven that people who think that find themselves proven wrong with great regularity. >I'd be a lot more concerned about some current hotshot dumping in >my face at 4000 feet . . . More likely you will dump in his; he's more likely to be aware of what's going on around him since he's more current. Years ago Perris had a ten way speedstar competition. One team of older jumpers showed up; they had Wonderhogs, Swifts etc. Jack asked them if they were current; they all assured him they were fine. He didn't ask for logbooks. After we landed from one jump I watched the load after us break off. One jumper continued in freefall to about 600 feet then we saw a parachute appear. Tim had picked us up in the truck and he sped out to where the guy had landed. He'd heard his Paralert go off, but then it went silent a second later, and he was confused by that. He said he had forgotten whether that was the breakoff signal or the pull signal. (Apparently someone had told him about how newer audibles worked, and he didn't remember how his worked.) So he waited, then figured he should pull. He did, and got an open main at about 600 feet. As he was telling this story I noticed he had a rubber band wrapped around his reserve handle and his main lift web. I asked him if he knew that was still on there. "Oh, yeah, I put that on so I could ride my motorcycle here with my rig on and not take any chances" he said. "Do you think that might be a problem if you had to use your reserve?" I asked him. "Oh, no, I'm sure it would come off . . ." He then tried pulling on the handle. The entire harness moved with the handle, then snapped back when he let go. He did this a few times then gave up. I'm sure if you had asked him before the jump if he was OK, he would have said something along the lines of "I'm fine! I'm more worried about these new clueless hotshots dumping in my face at 4000 feet, or swooping into me at 50 feet." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #108 January 4, 2011 QuoteYeah because that would work Crazy learn to follow the rules or go somewhere else Actually... It most likely would work unless the jumper ran his mouth. They do not test if they work, only if it was there."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 wmw999 2,166 #109 January 4, 2011 Having jumped with all that gear, and been uncurrent, I'd have to go with currency, then simplicity of jumps, then gear, as being important to address. That may not apply to everyone, but there were, in fact, a lot of jumps made on older gear. For those of you who say it's as safe, that's bullshit. But it's also not as dangerous as some other folks say, and I honestly think it should fall within the "choice" levels for individual experienced jumpers. 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 Scrumpot 1 #110 January 4, 2011 Quote They do not test if they work... Incorrect. At least at the one DZ I work which is an AAD required one. If I am called into manifest to do a logbook & gear check - new jumper to the dz arrival orientation, I will always check the AAD's function. If the AAD is already on when I check it, I will ask if I can turn it off, then back on (then will do it - I always at least just ask 1st, at least out of courtesy), or if it is not on, will ask if I can turn it on for them - then again, WILL do it. It is a part of my gear check-in/sign-off (for the DZ/waiver/record) routine. And before you ask, if they have 2 (or multiple) rigs, yes - I will check BOTH (and/or all), and WILL pay attention. Maybe that's just me (but I don't think so) - and then again too, in part, because I do also actually know someone 1st hand, who used to do just that!* *(put a picture of a "zero-down" Cypres inside the window/sheath) I won't name any names, but SH-GO, you know who you are! coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #111 January 4, 2011 QuoteIncorrect. At least at the one DZ I work which is an AAD required one Ok thats one.... But I have been to plenty of DZ's that require an AAD and never bothered to look past the controller, check a second rig... Etc..... I have seen some DZ's call the rigger on the packing data card to make sure the rig was not pencil packed. That does not mean that it happens everywhere."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 Scrumpot 1 #112 January 4, 2011 I don't disagree. Like I say, I too have the same experience / observation. Maybe it is just precisely due to this, that now that I have been saddled with the burden of being "the checker" (at least at this one DZ) - I in fact, at least myself personally, DO do this. Plus, if I am presented with a rig that the AAD is already on - because we are at an elevation that can be easily +/- 900-1,000 ft within an hours commute in any direction, I will "cycle it" regardless, to calibrate it for on-site elevation. All absolutely in front of the rig owner, and with their permission sought in advance in every case too, of course. Calling the rigger on the datacard to verify/validate repack date? Just for the record too, where you bring this up - Nope, I have not myself yet ever, personally - done that (yet). Like you say, if something smelled "fishy" somehow... The (unknown) jumper "running his/her mouth", or the data card writing somehow looked suspect (seal code didn't match, - Yes, I check that too - it only takes a second ...all a part of the "details" I guess many seem to skip - - or - I recognize the rigger and KNOW/recognize the handwriting is not right) - I probably then would. Again, just FWIW.coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #113 January 4, 2011 Quote Maybe it is just precisely due to this, that now that I have been saddled with the burden of being "the checker" (at least at this one DZ) - I in fact, at least myself personally, DO do this.... Calling the rigger on the datacard to verify/validate repack date? Just for the record too, where you bring this up - Nope, I have not myself yet ever, personally - done that (yet).... seal code didn't match, - Yes, I check that too - it only takes a second... Well clearly you take it seriously... Or you have OCDI thought the "call a rigger" was a bit strange, that's why I remembered it. I am tempted to congratulate you on being so thorough on your check in.... that or ready to make sure that I never stop by your DZ "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 obelixtim 103 #114 January 5, 2011 QuoteMore likely you will dump in his; I don't think so.......why would I do that?. QuoteI'm sure if you had asked him before the jump if he was OK, he would have said something along the lines of "I'm fine! I'm more worried about these new clueless hotshots dumping in my face at 4000 feet, or swooping into me at 50 feet." And that somehow applies to me???... Sounds like a Darwin candidate for sure.....but I could tell you quite a few similar stories invloving jumpers of all abilities and currency. I'm sure Patrick de Guaydon was very current, but it didn't stop him making the error which led to his death..... I don't recall stating that currency was not important. But somene who has seen the sport evolve in terms of disciplines and equipment over nearly 40 years also has a knowledge bank that can't be discounted. Todays current wunderkind simply doesn't have that.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #115 January 6, 2011 QuoteWhile I understand and agree with much of what you are saying...there IS the mental aspect to the sport that does get rusty with time away. Had a buddy that was off for six months, wanted to come out and do a simple 3way. I encouraged him to do a solo first to get the cobbs blown off...he didn't see the need until we sat and talked for a bit. When as a 'refresher' I started asking him some EP's, things like two-outs...all I got was crickets. Yes, one can easily fall stable and open a big canopy after a lay-off, but certainly they aren't as sharp as they might need to be in 'all' aspects of the sport that they might use even doing a simple solo. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yes. You're saying pretty much the same thing I'm saying. Keep the workload simple, and returning after a layoff is not a problem. Much depends on one's level of accomplishment & experience. Jim Wallace could easily return after six months off and pull off a "simple" 20-way. Meanwhile the guy who'd made 50 jumps in three years would do just fine on a solo or a two-way. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #116 January 6, 2011 ... You need gear that will operate correctly and land you safely. A 1980-circa Swift with a Pursuit main, round unmodified reserve, ROL deployment system and no AAD/RSL is absolutely less safe than a modern rig with an AAD, RSL and appropriately sized canopies... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If the returning jumper is using gear with which he's familiar it doesn't matter how old it is. Just because the other people standing around watching have never used a rig with ROL deployment or a round reseve doesn't mean it's dangerous for the guy who actually owns/has used this equipment. . It might not be a good idea for a young jumper to borrow my Wonderhog for his first 20-way, but it would be perfectly fine for me to use it as I've been jumping this rig for 20 years and have nearly 50 round jumps, including three reserve rides. Every rig I've ever seen, including the military gear I trained on, had some form of pin protection. This phrase comes up a lot, but is irrelevant as long as one observes basic safety procedures, such as protecting handles, etc. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #117 January 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteOn a personal level, accept any opportunity to serve on a jury, rather than try to get out of it. If it becomes obvious that the plaintiff is attempting to blame the "big corporation" for actions beyond its control, vote to acquit. (Example: If the heating/air serviceman rapes the housewife, HE is responsible, not the company for whom he works. If the pizza guy runs a red light & hits someone, HE is responsible, not the company...) I greatly respect the thoughtfulness of your posts on skydiving issues. But with all due respect, let me lend some perspective to what you propose: The only way what you propose could happen is if the prospective juror, during the screening process, lies to the court when asked whether he has any pre-conceived biases... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Really? Refusing to assign blame to an innocent party is considered a pre-conceived bias? I'd go in with an open mind. (Perhaps it really IS Wal-Mart's fault that the guy fell & broke his ankle.) But if it becomes apparent that the guy fell because he wasn't watching where he was going, Wal-Mart is not guilty. I don't care what the pizza company's policy may be. The driver is responsible for his operation of the vehicle. Period. If the heating/air company had knowledge that their serviceman intended to commit a crime on company time, perhaps they're partially responsible. Otherwise, it's not their fault. Not Guilty. Bringing this back to the subject of skydiving: If the DZ is putting out first timers at dusk in high winds, perhaps the staff is partially responsible. But if an experienced jumper decides, for whatever reason, to jump from their airplane & land without pulling it's not the DZO's fault for failing to require an AAD. (If a customer has an AAD but does not turn it on, is the DZ liable for failing to make sure the unit was properly set?) Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,463 #118 January 6, 2011 >And that somehow applies to me? No, it applied to him. He was jumping crappy old gear and was uncurrent and almost died as a result. >Sounds like a Darwin candidate for sure..... No, I'm pretty sure he had already reproduced (if he was going to do it at all, that is.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,463 #119 January 6, 2011 >If the returning jumper is using gear with which he's familiar it >doesn't matter how old it is. And if it's so old it's unsafe it doesn't matter how familiar with it he is. The ideal is well-designed, well-maintained extensively field tested gear that the jumper is familiar with. Claiming that arbitrarily old gear is just as safe as any modern gear is nonsense. >Every rig I've ever seen, including the military gear I trained on, had >some form of pin protection. So did the early Telesis rigs. Wasn't super good though. One of our students managed to open the flaps and pop the pin during an exit attempt; almost killed several friends of mine. Nowadays the pin protection is a lot better. Gear evolves with time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 103 #120 January 7, 2011 QuoteAnd if it's so old it's unsafe it doesn't matter how familiar with it he is. The ideal is well-designed, well-maintained extensively field tested gear that the jumper is familiar with. Claiming that arbitrarily old gear is just as safe as any modern gear is nonsense. Bill, I really like you... because your arguments are usually pretty well thought out. and very well put, and I absolutely agree with a lot of the sound advice you give on these forums..... But.... Old, doesn't automatically translate to unsafe. It just isn't so.....We were very concerned about looking after our own arses all that time, and looking after our less experienced friends as well. We weren't stupid. We knew what gear was good, and what was bad. We test jumped (unintentionally of course) lots of gear that proved to be bad. We got rid of quite a bit of it. You weren't around at the time, so I will cut you some slack. Long time ago, like 20 years ago, or more, before you knew anything about skydiving, there were lots of people around......skydiving....learning and assimilating lessons, and enjoying skydiving. All of us actually did shit loads of jumps.....and still do. We lived and jumped through the evolution of skydiving...from F & A gear to piggybacks, from rounds to squares, from solo style and accuracy, to RW, the invention of CRW, ripcords to throwaways and pullouts, Tandem skydiving, round to square reserves, student squares, radios, better AAD's, the evolution of PFF to AFF, ripstop nylon to F 1-11 to Zero P fabric. 7 cells to 9 cells and more, 220 sq foot canopies to sub 100's. Lots of new things about skydiving ...dangerously bad things sometimes, and some quite safe things. Some of that experience was gained through quite real pain. We weren't stupid, we had brains that worked...pretty damn well actually. We were able to figure out what was good, and what was bad. We saw people get injured, and die. We hated that. The benefit of that experience translates directly into what you see at the DZ today. I myself did lots of test jumps on radical new designs, and tried new techniques. It was interesting, challenging, and exciting.. As did lots of my fellow contemporaries, who for some strange reason, seem to agree with me on lots of these forums. And do you know something ?.....We've mostly never spoken or collaborated with each other...mainly because we have no reason to do so. Randomly it seems.....we seem to agree.... It pisses me off big time when someone comes on the forum and brazenly states that because we are older and a little more cautious, we are automatically stupid and dangerous, just because we disagree with their point of view, because they are hot, and current..... Of course gear is better these days....we are the people that MADE that happen. But some of the gear that was jumped at the time was perfectly safe....Thats why we kept jumping. We ditched a lot of gear that wasn't up to scratch... But a lot of the gear was good......and I would have no problem jumping it tomorrow. Of course we like the gear we have today. Of course we prefer it...its better!!!. But I understand why you would disagree.... You weren't there, and you simply don't know.... Newbies like you seem to think that everything today is somehow the result of some sort of mumbo jumbo magic that has nothing to do with the past. The disrespect shown to most of my contemporaries by todays hotshot know it all know nothings, who were still shitting yellow when we were out there doing it in very trying circumstances, upsets me. They've been around for very short time in the big scheme of things and have no knowledge of what went before. They've seen nothing during their short careers compared to the people who've been here since the 60'S and 70's, and are STILL here. They really know Jack Shit in the big scheme of things. Show some gratitude and respect...FFS. IF you know what that means... And I really HATE the way that dumb idiots manage to kill themselves today under perfectly good canopies. Some of those dickheads are REALLY current. Killing yourself under a perfectly good canopy as people do today...how REALLY STUPID is that. Explain that........My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,463 #121 January 7, 2011 >Old, doesn't automatically translate to unsafe. It just isn't so..... Is it a guarantee that older gear is unsafe? No. It is likely that older gear is less safe than modern gear? Yes. An old Racer SST without riser covers, or a Strong Starlite without riser covers, is less safe than a modern rig with riser covers. A heavily loaded Swift 5-cell reserve or a heavily loaded Micro Raven 120 is less safe than a similarly loaded Optimum. An unmodified 26 foot round is less safe than a modern square reserve. >Long time ago, like 20 years ago, or more, before you knew anything >about skydiving, there were lots of people round......skydiving.... >learning and assimilating lessons, and enjoying skydiving. Sorry, I was indeed around then. Made my first jump on a DC-5 in 1991. And yes, Mantas and then Navigators came along - and they were better student canopies. The first AAD I used (was forced to use is more like it) was a Sentinel. Then we went to FXC's. Then I got off student status and was able to finally disconnect the damn thing. Years later I got a Cypres - and yes, it was a much better AAD than the other two. >Of course gear is better these days....we are the people that MADE that >happen. Exactly. It would be foolish to ignore all the work we did because someone really wants to "prove" their Racer SST with the Micro Raven 120 is just as good as any modern gear. >You weren't there, and you simply don't know.... Newbies like you >seem to think that everything today is somehow the result of some >sort of mumbo jumbo magic that has nothing to do with the past. No, it's due to a lot of hard work. I helped test the Reflex. I watched other people test the Amigo, and the Spectre, and most recently the Storm. You'd have to be pretty foolish to say that we haven't made any progress, and that 20 year old gear is every bit as safe as modern gear. >Show some gratitude and respect... I have a great deal of respect for the real pioneers in the sport. Mick Cottle, Beezy Shaw, Bill Booth, Brian Germain, John LeBlanc, Sandy Reid, Bill Coe, Helmut Cloth, even John Sherman when you catch him on a good day. I've had the privilege of speaking with, working with and jumping with these people, and they have made the sport a better place. They are the reason that today's gear is better than the gear I had when I started. I tend not to have much respect for jumpers who demand it based on their own sense of superiority, and justify it with nothing more than age and a dislike of newer jumpers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnMitchell 14 #122 January 7, 2011 Quote Nowadays the pin protection is a lot better. Gear evolves with time. Pin protection on a lot of 70's and 80's rigs was a joke. Remember watching all those Wonderhog main loop flaps waving back and forth in freefall? Vskydiver had a premature deployment on her reserve in the plane on an 80's rig due to poor flap design. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,463 #123 January 7, 2011 >Pin protection on a lot of 70's and 80's rigs was a joke. Yep. That Swift I had had several layers of velcro and binding tape sewn on in an attempt to keep the main pin protected. Sometimes it stayed closed the entire jump; usually it didn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #124 January 8, 2011 +1 25 years of test jumping everything from military to sports gear. Pilot chutes to cutaway systems for fighter jets. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 103 #125 January 8, 2011 Quote+1 25 years of test jumping everything from military to sports gear. Pilot chutes to cutaway systems for fighter jets. Sparky Am I missing something here?. Seems to be a reply to a missing post......smells like a moderaters axe.... Oh well.....ho hum....My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 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
skypuppy 1 #106 January 4, 2011 A 1980-circa Swift with a Pursuit main, round unmodified reserve, ROL deployment system and no AAD/RSL is absolutely less safe than a modern rig with an AAD, RSL and appropriately sized canopies. _____________________________________________ I cannot imagine anyone ever having an unmodified round reserve in a swift system -- let's not get carried away with hyperbole! The swifts came out with square reserves. And although modern rigs 'might' be safer than older ones, it's not really through addition of AADs and RSLs....If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #107 January 4, 2011 >Balls. The odds would go only very slightly up if at all. Well, we have a difference of opinion then. Currency does matter. Good gear does matter. You may indeed think that you will never make any mistakes - you will never forget to pull, or will never have trouble finding your reserve handle, or will never hesitate during an off-heading opening when you find yourself facing someone. History has proven that people who think that find themselves proven wrong with great regularity. >I'd be a lot more concerned about some current hotshot dumping in >my face at 4000 feet . . . More likely you will dump in his; he's more likely to be aware of what's going on around him since he's more current. Years ago Perris had a ten way speedstar competition. One team of older jumpers showed up; they had Wonderhogs, Swifts etc. Jack asked them if they were current; they all assured him they were fine. He didn't ask for logbooks. After we landed from one jump I watched the load after us break off. One jumper continued in freefall to about 600 feet then we saw a parachute appear. Tim had picked us up in the truck and he sped out to where the guy had landed. He'd heard his Paralert go off, but then it went silent a second later, and he was confused by that. He said he had forgotten whether that was the breakoff signal or the pull signal. (Apparently someone had told him about how newer audibles worked, and he didn't remember how his worked.) So he waited, then figured he should pull. He did, and got an open main at about 600 feet. As he was telling this story I noticed he had a rubber band wrapped around his reserve handle and his main lift web. I asked him if he knew that was still on there. "Oh, yeah, I put that on so I could ride my motorcycle here with my rig on and not take any chances" he said. "Do you think that might be a problem if you had to use your reserve?" I asked him. "Oh, no, I'm sure it would come off . . ." He then tried pulling on the handle. The entire harness moved with the handle, then snapped back when he let go. He did this a few times then gave up. I'm sure if you had asked him before the jump if he was OK, he would have said something along the lines of "I'm fine! I'm more worried about these new clueless hotshots dumping in my face at 4000 feet, or swooping into me at 50 feet." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #108 January 4, 2011 QuoteYeah because that would work Crazy learn to follow the rules or go somewhere else Actually... It most likely would work unless the jumper ran his mouth. They do not test if they work, only if it was there."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
wmw999 2,166 #109 January 4, 2011 Having jumped with all that gear, and been uncurrent, I'd have to go with currency, then simplicity of jumps, then gear, as being important to address. That may not apply to everyone, but there were, in fact, a lot of jumps made on older gear. For those of you who say it's as safe, that's bullshit. But it's also not as dangerous as some other folks say, and I honestly think it should fall within the "choice" levels for individual experienced jumpers. 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
Scrumpot 1 #110 January 4, 2011 Quote They do not test if they work... Incorrect. At least at the one DZ I work which is an AAD required one. If I am called into manifest to do a logbook & gear check - new jumper to the dz arrival orientation, I will always check the AAD's function. If the AAD is already on when I check it, I will ask if I can turn it off, then back on (then will do it - I always at least just ask 1st, at least out of courtesy), or if it is not on, will ask if I can turn it on for them - then again, WILL do it. It is a part of my gear check-in/sign-off (for the DZ/waiver/record) routine. And before you ask, if they have 2 (or multiple) rigs, yes - I will check BOTH (and/or all), and WILL pay attention. Maybe that's just me (but I don't think so) - and then again too, in part, because I do also actually know someone 1st hand, who used to do just that!* *(put a picture of a "zero-down" Cypres inside the window/sheath) I won't name any names, but SH-GO, you know who you are! coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #111 January 4, 2011 QuoteIncorrect. At least at the one DZ I work which is an AAD required one Ok thats one.... But I have been to plenty of DZ's that require an AAD and never bothered to look past the controller, check a second rig... Etc..... I have seen some DZ's call the rigger on the packing data card to make sure the rig was not pencil packed. That does not mean that it happens everywhere."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
Scrumpot 1 #112 January 4, 2011 I don't disagree. Like I say, I too have the same experience / observation. Maybe it is just precisely due to this, that now that I have been saddled with the burden of being "the checker" (at least at this one DZ) - I in fact, at least myself personally, DO do this. Plus, if I am presented with a rig that the AAD is already on - because we are at an elevation that can be easily +/- 900-1,000 ft within an hours commute in any direction, I will "cycle it" regardless, to calibrate it for on-site elevation. All absolutely in front of the rig owner, and with their permission sought in advance in every case too, of course. Calling the rigger on the datacard to verify/validate repack date? Just for the record too, where you bring this up - Nope, I have not myself yet ever, personally - done that (yet). Like you say, if something smelled "fishy" somehow... The (unknown) jumper "running his/her mouth", or the data card writing somehow looked suspect (seal code didn't match, - Yes, I check that too - it only takes a second ...all a part of the "details" I guess many seem to skip - - or - I recognize the rigger and KNOW/recognize the handwriting is not right) - I probably then would. Again, just FWIW.coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #113 January 4, 2011 Quote Maybe it is just precisely due to this, that now that I have been saddled with the burden of being "the checker" (at least at this one DZ) - I in fact, at least myself personally, DO do this.... Calling the rigger on the datacard to verify/validate repack date? Just for the record too, where you bring this up - Nope, I have not myself yet ever, personally - done that (yet).... seal code didn't match, - Yes, I check that too - it only takes a second... Well clearly you take it seriously... Or you have OCDI thought the "call a rigger" was a bit strange, that's why I remembered it. I am tempted to congratulate you on being so thorough on your check in.... that or ready to make sure that I never stop by your DZ "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
obelixtim 103 #114 January 5, 2011 QuoteMore likely you will dump in his; I don't think so.......why would I do that?. QuoteI'm sure if you had asked him before the jump if he was OK, he would have said something along the lines of "I'm fine! I'm more worried about these new clueless hotshots dumping in my face at 4000 feet, or swooping into me at 50 feet." And that somehow applies to me???... Sounds like a Darwin candidate for sure.....but I could tell you quite a few similar stories invloving jumpers of all abilities and currency. I'm sure Patrick de Guaydon was very current, but it didn't stop him making the error which led to his death..... I don't recall stating that currency was not important. But somene who has seen the sport evolve in terms of disciplines and equipment over nearly 40 years also has a knowledge bank that can't be discounted. Todays current wunderkind simply doesn't have that.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #115 January 6, 2011 QuoteWhile I understand and agree with much of what you are saying...there IS the mental aspect to the sport that does get rusty with time away. Had a buddy that was off for six months, wanted to come out and do a simple 3way. I encouraged him to do a solo first to get the cobbs blown off...he didn't see the need until we sat and talked for a bit. When as a 'refresher' I started asking him some EP's, things like two-outs...all I got was crickets. Yes, one can easily fall stable and open a big canopy after a lay-off, but certainly they aren't as sharp as they might need to be in 'all' aspects of the sport that they might use even doing a simple solo. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yes. You're saying pretty much the same thing I'm saying. Keep the workload simple, and returning after a layoff is not a problem. Much depends on one's level of accomplishment & experience. Jim Wallace could easily return after six months off and pull off a "simple" 20-way. Meanwhile the guy who'd made 50 jumps in three years would do just fine on a solo or a two-way. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #116 January 6, 2011 ... You need gear that will operate correctly and land you safely. A 1980-circa Swift with a Pursuit main, round unmodified reserve, ROL deployment system and no AAD/RSL is absolutely less safe than a modern rig with an AAD, RSL and appropriately sized canopies... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If the returning jumper is using gear with which he's familiar it doesn't matter how old it is. Just because the other people standing around watching have never used a rig with ROL deployment or a round reseve doesn't mean it's dangerous for the guy who actually owns/has used this equipment. . It might not be a good idea for a young jumper to borrow my Wonderhog for his first 20-way, but it would be perfectly fine for me to use it as I've been jumping this rig for 20 years and have nearly 50 round jumps, including three reserve rides. Every rig I've ever seen, including the military gear I trained on, had some form of pin protection. This phrase comes up a lot, but is irrelevant as long as one observes basic safety procedures, such as protecting handles, etc. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #117 January 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteOn a personal level, accept any opportunity to serve on a jury, rather than try to get out of it. If it becomes obvious that the plaintiff is attempting to blame the "big corporation" for actions beyond its control, vote to acquit. (Example: If the heating/air serviceman rapes the housewife, HE is responsible, not the company for whom he works. If the pizza guy runs a red light & hits someone, HE is responsible, not the company...) I greatly respect the thoughtfulness of your posts on skydiving issues. But with all due respect, let me lend some perspective to what you propose: The only way what you propose could happen is if the prospective juror, during the screening process, lies to the court when asked whether he has any pre-conceived biases... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Really? Refusing to assign blame to an innocent party is considered a pre-conceived bias? I'd go in with an open mind. (Perhaps it really IS Wal-Mart's fault that the guy fell & broke his ankle.) But if it becomes apparent that the guy fell because he wasn't watching where he was going, Wal-Mart is not guilty. I don't care what the pizza company's policy may be. The driver is responsible for his operation of the vehicle. Period. If the heating/air company had knowledge that their serviceman intended to commit a crime on company time, perhaps they're partially responsible. Otherwise, it's not their fault. Not Guilty. Bringing this back to the subject of skydiving: If the DZ is putting out first timers at dusk in high winds, perhaps the staff is partially responsible. But if an experienced jumper decides, for whatever reason, to jump from their airplane & land without pulling it's not the DZO's fault for failing to require an AAD. (If a customer has an AAD but does not turn it on, is the DZ liable for failing to make sure the unit was properly set?) Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,463 #118 January 6, 2011 >And that somehow applies to me? No, it applied to him. He was jumping crappy old gear and was uncurrent and almost died as a result. >Sounds like a Darwin candidate for sure..... No, I'm pretty sure he had already reproduced (if he was going to do it at all, that is.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,463 #119 January 6, 2011 >If the returning jumper is using gear with which he's familiar it >doesn't matter how old it is. And if it's so old it's unsafe it doesn't matter how familiar with it he is. The ideal is well-designed, well-maintained extensively field tested gear that the jumper is familiar with. Claiming that arbitrarily old gear is just as safe as any modern gear is nonsense. >Every rig I've ever seen, including the military gear I trained on, had >some form of pin protection. So did the early Telesis rigs. Wasn't super good though. One of our students managed to open the flaps and pop the pin during an exit attempt; almost killed several friends of mine. Nowadays the pin protection is a lot better. Gear evolves with time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 103 #120 January 7, 2011 QuoteAnd if it's so old it's unsafe it doesn't matter how familiar with it he is. The ideal is well-designed, well-maintained extensively field tested gear that the jumper is familiar with. Claiming that arbitrarily old gear is just as safe as any modern gear is nonsense. Bill, I really like you... because your arguments are usually pretty well thought out. and very well put, and I absolutely agree with a lot of the sound advice you give on these forums..... But.... Old, doesn't automatically translate to unsafe. It just isn't so.....We were very concerned about looking after our own arses all that time, and looking after our less experienced friends as well. We weren't stupid. We knew what gear was good, and what was bad. We test jumped (unintentionally of course) lots of gear that proved to be bad. We got rid of quite a bit of it. You weren't around at the time, so I will cut you some slack. Long time ago, like 20 years ago, or more, before you knew anything about skydiving, there were lots of people around......skydiving....learning and assimilating lessons, and enjoying skydiving. All of us actually did shit loads of jumps.....and still do. We lived and jumped through the evolution of skydiving...from F & A gear to piggybacks, from rounds to squares, from solo style and accuracy, to RW, the invention of CRW, ripcords to throwaways and pullouts, Tandem skydiving, round to square reserves, student squares, radios, better AAD's, the evolution of PFF to AFF, ripstop nylon to F 1-11 to Zero P fabric. 7 cells to 9 cells and more, 220 sq foot canopies to sub 100's. Lots of new things about skydiving ...dangerously bad things sometimes, and some quite safe things. Some of that experience was gained through quite real pain. We weren't stupid, we had brains that worked...pretty damn well actually. We were able to figure out what was good, and what was bad. We saw people get injured, and die. We hated that. The benefit of that experience translates directly into what you see at the DZ today. I myself did lots of test jumps on radical new designs, and tried new techniques. It was interesting, challenging, and exciting.. As did lots of my fellow contemporaries, who for some strange reason, seem to agree with me on lots of these forums. And do you know something ?.....We've mostly never spoken or collaborated with each other...mainly because we have no reason to do so. Randomly it seems.....we seem to agree.... It pisses me off big time when someone comes on the forum and brazenly states that because we are older and a little more cautious, we are automatically stupid and dangerous, just because we disagree with their point of view, because they are hot, and current..... Of course gear is better these days....we are the people that MADE that happen. But some of the gear that was jumped at the time was perfectly safe....Thats why we kept jumping. We ditched a lot of gear that wasn't up to scratch... But a lot of the gear was good......and I would have no problem jumping it tomorrow. Of course we like the gear we have today. Of course we prefer it...its better!!!. But I understand why you would disagree.... You weren't there, and you simply don't know.... Newbies like you seem to think that everything today is somehow the result of some sort of mumbo jumbo magic that has nothing to do with the past. The disrespect shown to most of my contemporaries by todays hotshot know it all know nothings, who were still shitting yellow when we were out there doing it in very trying circumstances, upsets me. They've been around for very short time in the big scheme of things and have no knowledge of what went before. They've seen nothing during their short careers compared to the people who've been here since the 60'S and 70's, and are STILL here. They really know Jack Shit in the big scheme of things. Show some gratitude and respect...FFS. IF you know what that means... And I really HATE the way that dumb idiots manage to kill themselves today under perfectly good canopies. Some of those dickheads are REALLY current. Killing yourself under a perfectly good canopy as people do today...how REALLY STUPID is that. Explain that........My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,463 #121 January 7, 2011 >Old, doesn't automatically translate to unsafe. It just isn't so..... Is it a guarantee that older gear is unsafe? No. It is likely that older gear is less safe than modern gear? Yes. An old Racer SST without riser covers, or a Strong Starlite without riser covers, is less safe than a modern rig with riser covers. A heavily loaded Swift 5-cell reserve or a heavily loaded Micro Raven 120 is less safe than a similarly loaded Optimum. An unmodified 26 foot round is less safe than a modern square reserve. >Long time ago, like 20 years ago, or more, before you knew anything >about skydiving, there were lots of people round......skydiving.... >learning and assimilating lessons, and enjoying skydiving. Sorry, I was indeed around then. Made my first jump on a DC-5 in 1991. And yes, Mantas and then Navigators came along - and they were better student canopies. The first AAD I used (was forced to use is more like it) was a Sentinel. Then we went to FXC's. Then I got off student status and was able to finally disconnect the damn thing. Years later I got a Cypres - and yes, it was a much better AAD than the other two. >Of course gear is better these days....we are the people that MADE that >happen. Exactly. It would be foolish to ignore all the work we did because someone really wants to "prove" their Racer SST with the Micro Raven 120 is just as good as any modern gear. >You weren't there, and you simply don't know.... Newbies like you >seem to think that everything today is somehow the result of some >sort of mumbo jumbo magic that has nothing to do with the past. No, it's due to a lot of hard work. I helped test the Reflex. I watched other people test the Amigo, and the Spectre, and most recently the Storm. You'd have to be pretty foolish to say that we haven't made any progress, and that 20 year old gear is every bit as safe as modern gear. >Show some gratitude and respect... I have a great deal of respect for the real pioneers in the sport. Mick Cottle, Beezy Shaw, Bill Booth, Brian Germain, John LeBlanc, Sandy Reid, Bill Coe, Helmut Cloth, even John Sherman when you catch him on a good day. I've had the privilege of speaking with, working with and jumping with these people, and they have made the sport a better place. They are the reason that today's gear is better than the gear I had when I started. I tend not to have much respect for jumpers who demand it based on their own sense of superiority, and justify it with nothing more than age and a dislike of newer jumpers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnMitchell 14 #122 January 7, 2011 Quote Nowadays the pin protection is a lot better. Gear evolves with time. Pin protection on a lot of 70's and 80's rigs was a joke. Remember watching all those Wonderhog main loop flaps waving back and forth in freefall? Vskydiver had a premature deployment on her reserve in the plane on an 80's rig due to poor flap design. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,463 #123 January 7, 2011 >Pin protection on a lot of 70's and 80's rigs was a joke. Yep. That Swift I had had several layers of velcro and binding tape sewn on in an attempt to keep the main pin protected. Sometimes it stayed closed the entire jump; usually it didn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #124 January 8, 2011 +1 25 years of test jumping everything from military to sports gear. Pilot chutes to cutaway systems for fighter jets. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 103 #125 January 8, 2011 Quote+1 25 years of test jumping everything from military to sports gear. Pilot chutes to cutaway systems for fighter jets. Sparky Am I missing something here?. Seems to be a reply to a missing post......smells like a moderaters axe.... Oh well.....ho hum....My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 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
billvon 2,463 #118 January 6, 2011 >And that somehow applies to me? No, it applied to him. He was jumping crappy old gear and was uncurrent and almost died as a result. >Sounds like a Darwin candidate for sure..... No, I'm pretty sure he had already reproduced (if he was going to do it at all, that is.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #119 January 6, 2011 >If the returning jumper is using gear with which he's familiar it >doesn't matter how old it is. And if it's so old it's unsafe it doesn't matter how familiar with it he is. The ideal is well-designed, well-maintained extensively field tested gear that the jumper is familiar with. Claiming that arbitrarily old gear is just as safe as any modern gear is nonsense. >Every rig I've ever seen, including the military gear I trained on, had >some form of pin protection. So did the early Telesis rigs. Wasn't super good though. One of our students managed to open the flaps and pop the pin during an exit attempt; almost killed several friends of mine. Nowadays the pin protection is a lot better. Gear evolves with time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 103 #120 January 7, 2011 QuoteAnd if it's so old it's unsafe it doesn't matter how familiar with it he is. The ideal is well-designed, well-maintained extensively field tested gear that the jumper is familiar with. Claiming that arbitrarily old gear is just as safe as any modern gear is nonsense. Bill, I really like you... because your arguments are usually pretty well thought out. and very well put, and I absolutely agree with a lot of the sound advice you give on these forums..... But.... Old, doesn't automatically translate to unsafe. It just isn't so.....We were very concerned about looking after our own arses all that time, and looking after our less experienced friends as well. We weren't stupid. We knew what gear was good, and what was bad. We test jumped (unintentionally of course) lots of gear that proved to be bad. We got rid of quite a bit of it. You weren't around at the time, so I will cut you some slack. Long time ago, like 20 years ago, or more, before you knew anything about skydiving, there were lots of people around......skydiving....learning and assimilating lessons, and enjoying skydiving. All of us actually did shit loads of jumps.....and still do. We lived and jumped through the evolution of skydiving...from F & A gear to piggybacks, from rounds to squares, from solo style and accuracy, to RW, the invention of CRW, ripcords to throwaways and pullouts, Tandem skydiving, round to square reserves, student squares, radios, better AAD's, the evolution of PFF to AFF, ripstop nylon to F 1-11 to Zero P fabric. 7 cells to 9 cells and more, 220 sq foot canopies to sub 100's. Lots of new things about skydiving ...dangerously bad things sometimes, and some quite safe things. Some of that experience was gained through quite real pain. We weren't stupid, we had brains that worked...pretty damn well actually. We were able to figure out what was good, and what was bad. We saw people get injured, and die. We hated that. The benefit of that experience translates directly into what you see at the DZ today. I myself did lots of test jumps on radical new designs, and tried new techniques. It was interesting, challenging, and exciting.. As did lots of my fellow contemporaries, who for some strange reason, seem to agree with me on lots of these forums. And do you know something ?.....We've mostly never spoken or collaborated with each other...mainly because we have no reason to do so. Randomly it seems.....we seem to agree.... It pisses me off big time when someone comes on the forum and brazenly states that because we are older and a little more cautious, we are automatically stupid and dangerous, just because we disagree with their point of view, because they are hot, and current..... Of course gear is better these days....we are the people that MADE that happen. But some of the gear that was jumped at the time was perfectly safe....Thats why we kept jumping. We ditched a lot of gear that wasn't up to scratch... But a lot of the gear was good......and I would have no problem jumping it tomorrow. Of course we like the gear we have today. Of course we prefer it...its better!!!. But I understand why you would disagree.... You weren't there, and you simply don't know.... Newbies like you seem to think that everything today is somehow the result of some sort of mumbo jumbo magic that has nothing to do with the past. The disrespect shown to most of my contemporaries by todays hotshot know it all know nothings, who were still shitting yellow when we were out there doing it in very trying circumstances, upsets me. They've been around for very short time in the big scheme of things and have no knowledge of what went before. They've seen nothing during their short careers compared to the people who've been here since the 60'S and 70's, and are STILL here. They really know Jack Shit in the big scheme of things. Show some gratitude and respect...FFS. IF you know what that means... And I really HATE the way that dumb idiots manage to kill themselves today under perfectly good canopies. Some of those dickheads are REALLY current. Killing yourself under a perfectly good canopy as people do today...how REALLY STUPID is that. Explain that........My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #121 January 7, 2011 >Old, doesn't automatically translate to unsafe. It just isn't so..... Is it a guarantee that older gear is unsafe? No. It is likely that older gear is less safe than modern gear? Yes. An old Racer SST without riser covers, or a Strong Starlite without riser covers, is less safe than a modern rig with riser covers. A heavily loaded Swift 5-cell reserve or a heavily loaded Micro Raven 120 is less safe than a similarly loaded Optimum. An unmodified 26 foot round is less safe than a modern square reserve. >Long time ago, like 20 years ago, or more, before you knew anything >about skydiving, there were lots of people round......skydiving.... >learning and assimilating lessons, and enjoying skydiving. Sorry, I was indeed around then. Made my first jump on a DC-5 in 1991. And yes, Mantas and then Navigators came along - and they were better student canopies. The first AAD I used (was forced to use is more like it) was a Sentinel. Then we went to FXC's. Then I got off student status and was able to finally disconnect the damn thing. Years later I got a Cypres - and yes, it was a much better AAD than the other two. >Of course gear is better these days....we are the people that MADE that >happen. Exactly. It would be foolish to ignore all the work we did because someone really wants to "prove" their Racer SST with the Micro Raven 120 is just as good as any modern gear. >You weren't there, and you simply don't know.... Newbies like you >seem to think that everything today is somehow the result of some >sort of mumbo jumbo magic that has nothing to do with the past. No, it's due to a lot of hard work. I helped test the Reflex. I watched other people test the Amigo, and the Spectre, and most recently the Storm. You'd have to be pretty foolish to say that we haven't made any progress, and that 20 year old gear is every bit as safe as modern gear. >Show some gratitude and respect... I have a great deal of respect for the real pioneers in the sport. Mick Cottle, Beezy Shaw, Bill Booth, Brian Germain, John LeBlanc, Sandy Reid, Bill Coe, Helmut Cloth, even John Sherman when you catch him on a good day. I've had the privilege of speaking with, working with and jumping with these people, and they have made the sport a better place. They are the reason that today's gear is better than the gear I had when I started. I tend not to have much respect for jumpers who demand it based on their own sense of superiority, and justify it with nothing more than age and a dislike of newer jumpers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #122 January 7, 2011 Quote Nowadays the pin protection is a lot better. Gear evolves with time. Pin protection on a lot of 70's and 80's rigs was a joke. Remember watching all those Wonderhog main loop flaps waving back and forth in freefall? Vskydiver had a premature deployment on her reserve in the plane on an 80's rig due to poor flap design. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #123 January 7, 2011 >Pin protection on a lot of 70's and 80's rigs was a joke. Yep. That Swift I had had several layers of velcro and binding tape sewn on in an attempt to keep the main pin protected. Sometimes it stayed closed the entire jump; usually it didn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #124 January 8, 2011 +1 25 years of test jumping everything from military to sports gear. Pilot chutes to cutaway systems for fighter jets. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 103 #125 January 8, 2011 Quote+1 25 years of test jumping everything from military to sports gear. Pilot chutes to cutaway systems for fighter jets. Sparky Am I missing something here?. Seems to be a reply to a missing post......smells like a moderaters axe.... Oh well.....ho hum....My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
