AndyMan 7 #76 April 14, 2005 QuoteI have a stepped E-Procedure system that I am not going to share in an open forum...If you want PM me and I will tell you about it. Its a PERSONAL choice and not somehting I would teach of encourage others to use. Interesting. So after all this shit you just laid on me, you won't even share your own thoughts. QuoteIf you think you can factor all that in and still have time to save your life I think you are saddly mistaken. I don't expect to. If I ever need to, I hope I do. Either way, if you're in a wrap at 300 feet you're up shit creek no matter what you do. Having a rote reaction that may not apply could screw you up just as much as inaction. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #77 April 14, 2005 QuoteInteresting. So after all this shit you just laid on me, you won't even share your own thoughts. What part of this were you not able to read?: QuoteI have a stepped E-Procedure system that I am not going to share in an open forum...If you want PM me and I will tell you about it. Its a PERSONAL choice and not something I would teach of encourage others to use. Besides a smart boy like you I bet can find it if you bothered to look. But I don't want to confuse newer jumpers with a complicated process. QuoteI don't expect to. If I ever need to, I hope I do. Either way, if you're in a wrap at 300 feet you're up shit creek no matter what you do. Having a wrote reaction that may not apply could screw you up just as much as innaction I'd bet on doing nothing would doing more harm, than just pulling the reserve."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
jlmiracle 7 #78 April 14, 2005 There are alot of things implied in the SIM and need to be fixed. If you look at the age requirements you will see it doesn't appear that a 17 year old can skydive but a 16 year old can. If I make it to the next BOD meeting I will mention it to the "safety nazi's" that they need to remove "recommendations" under everything and make it a requirements because common sense has completely gone out the door. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craichead 0 #79 April 14, 2005 QuoteIf I make it to the next BOD meeting I will mention it to the "safety nazi's" that they need to remove "recommendations" under everything and make it a requirements because common sense has completely gone out the door. Okay...so let's say you got your wish. Under the SIM's requirements of dealing with a malfunction, I need to have made and executed a decision by 2,500ft because I have an A license. What if I'm flying along and a malfunction occurs at 2,000ft; say somebody flies/falls into my canopy and damages it beyond controllability. Since I know it's against the requirements to cutaway and pull my reserve at 1,800ft to save my butt, I'll just ride in the spinning malfunction and hope for the best. I'd hate for the USPA to have to discipline me. _Pm__ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #80 April 14, 2005 QuoteWhat if I'm flying along and a malfunction occurs at 2,000ft; say somebody flies/falls into my canopy and damages it beyond controllability. Since I know it's against the requirements to cutaway and pull my reserve at 1,800ft to save my butt, I'll just ride in the spinning malfunction and hope for the best. Like I said in my previous post, common sense in people is gone. We need signs and regulations for everything because society (including skydivers) have lost the ability to make good common sense judgement calls without being told or having it in print. Go ahead and cutaway at 150ft if you think it will work. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craichead 0 #81 April 14, 2005 QuoteLike I said in my previous post, common sense in people is gone. We need signs and regulations for everything because society (including skydivers) have lost the ability to make good common sense judgement calls without being told or having it in print. Oh, I see! Then we really should be getting rid of the SIM all together so that we can foster development of common sense in skydivers! _Pm Common sense comes from common knowledge.__ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craichead 0 #82 April 14, 2005 QuoteGo ahead and cutaway at 150ft if you think it will work. I didn't say 150ft, I said 1,800ft. Changing "Recommendation" to "Requirement" will discourage those common-senseless people from chopping unlandable canopies at safe altitudes. Why is that a good thing? Recommendations paired with good common sense allow for me to cutaway at 1,800ft to save my butt even though I have an A license and should not be cutting away below 2,500ft. Recommendations also allow me to cutaway at 150ft if I choose to do so. I probably wouldn’t, but the option is there. Ultimately it's my choice and not a requirement dictated by the USPA. _Pm__ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #83 April 14, 2005 QuoteRecommendations also allow me to cutaway at 150ft if I choose to do so. I probably wouldn’t, but the option is there. Ultimately it's my choice and not a requirement dictated by the USPA. Your right we should get rid of the USPA and the SIM, we should probably just ignore the FAA too. In fact, we should get rid of drivers licenses too cause you always have the choice to drive off a cliff or into a retaining wall. Its ultimately your choice. It may not be the one the majority of people will make but it will still be your choice. JBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craichead 0 #84 April 14, 2005 QuoteYour right we should get rid of the USPA and the SIM, we should probably just ignore the FAA too. In fact, we should get rid of drivers licenses too cause you always have the choice to drive off a cliff or into a retaining wall. Its ultimately your choice. It may not be the one the majority of people will make but it will still be your choice. Yup, all of those suggestions are just as sensible as changing "Recommendations" to read as "Requirements" in the SIM. _Pm__ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #85 April 14, 2005 When I intalled an AAD in my rig, my emergency plans changed. It wasn't due to complacency, or reliance on a safety device. It was because my understanding of the operating parameters of my AAD allowed me to realize that an AAD can increase the liklihood of a two canopy out scenario. In response to that increases risk (which was the price of the benefits offered by an AAD), I raised my minimum main deployment altitude. Now, if I find myself in still in freefall at or below 1500 feet, I plan go straight for the reserve. I like pulling at least twice that high but have been in the sport too long to believe no one ever loses track of altitude awareness, and goes a bit low. If I had a Skyhook in my rig, my minimum cutaway altitude would change. Given the information that is available, I believe that a low cutaway with a Skyhook offers a higher probability of survival than would deploying a canopy into a malfunctioning main. I believe it is important that we maintain knowledge about the equipment we rely on to save our lives. Such knowledge is wasted if we don't apply it to our plan of action during the skydive, to obtain the maximum mitigation of risk. For Great Deals on Gear Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #86 April 14, 2005 Quote Yup, all of those suggestions are just as sensible as changing "Recommendations" to read as "Requirements" in the SIM. Why would that be such a bad thing? BSR's are broke every day. You obviously are going to make your own choices regardless of others people years of experience. QuoteAmazing... simply amazing! Yeah! Usually they need at least 100 jumps before they know everything! He must be a quick learner. This was your quote about someone else on a different thread, but I found it rather funny considering... jBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #87 April 14, 2005 You might want to research two things before you jump to conclusions. 1) Where she works. 2) Who she's maried to. I will say only one thing. She's absolutely right, your arguments make no sense at all. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unparagoned 0 #88 April 14, 2005 Quote Right. The driver that was only willing and capable to drive 5-mph until they got an airbag and with that being the only change, now drive 10-mph over shouldn't drive more than 5-mph over even with the airbag. There are some jumpers that exceed their abilities-driven risk level because they have an AAD, audible, etc. That is my point. If you are only capable of driving 5-mph over the speed limit, an airbag does not mean you can now drive 10-mph over. People think they can though. The 500-ft faster deployment so you pull 500-ft lower is the perfect example. Derek The analogy doesn't work because driving 5mph may be more dangerous than 10mph. A better analogy would be that you are driving away from maniacs trying to kill you. You are about to drive over a bridge which is opening up(like in movies), so driving 5mph over means you are less likely to clear the jump, but driving 10mph over the speed limit means you are more likely to make the jump and survive the landing as you do have airbags. You could risk going 5mph over. Lets assume that you are right and we should not change our cut-away limit. What safety benefit does the skyhook provide you? From what I can tell is the skyhooks only safety benefit from a low cut-away.... (Ok the skyhook would give you an extra 150ft under canopy but you should have enough hight under your reserve anyway). To put it in more prospective with made up numbers, say at 500ft someone goes through your canopy, you have a 75% chance of surviving by cutting-away with your skyhook. You have 60% chance of surviving by just pulling your reserve. What many of you seem to be arguing is that if the skyhook doesn't work or whatever it may cause you to die whereas by just pulling the reserve you would have lived- this would happen to 15% of people. Yep so 15% of people who rely on their skyhook instead of just pulling their reserve will die. But if you get some overall perspective then you will see it is safer to use the skyhook in this situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #89 April 14, 2005 QuoteYou might want to research two things before you jump to conclusions. 1) Where she works. So what? Judy is an AFF "I". That trumps your "Coach" Quote2) Who she's maried to Even a bigger so what? Maybe you should check to see who HER husband is huh? And maybe see at which DZ she works at and for whom she works. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that she has more access to the USPA than you, or your wife. Hell I'll give you a hint...She does AFF at a National Director's DZ, and is married to a Regional Director."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
AndyMan 7 #90 April 14, 2005 I guess her penis is bigger than mine. I'm sorry. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #91 April 14, 2005 QuoteI guess her penis is bigger than mine. I'm sorry. _Am Good of you to admit it.Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #92 April 14, 2005 QuoteI guess her penis is bigger than mine. I'm sorry. OK,,, I must admit you made me laugh with that one"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
egons 0 #93 April 14, 2005 I think you are clearly confused why RWS came out with the Skyhook! This system was not designed for low break aways - yes it has been done and proven how valuable it is low down. Initially it was meant for tandem skydiving reducing the time between main and reserve canopy! It was with such success that we then made it availible for the sport jumpers. There are many benefits to a Skyhook other than low break aways! Hopefully you will be in the position to witness a Skyhook deployment and you may rethink the whole idea... I have never once had a skydiver come up to me or phone me and say it was the biggest waste of money option the could ever have bought! Not picking on you, but it does help when you understand the system a little more, and its benefits! "Start doing what's necessary, then what's possible, and suddenly you're doing the impossible!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craichead 0 #94 April 14, 2005 QuoteWhy would that be such a bad thing? BSR's are broke every day. Why is that a bad thing? Have you been paying attention? You never answered my question if this was a good thing: QuoteChanging "Recommendation" to "Requirement" will discourage those common-senseless people from chopping unlandable canopies at safe altitudes. So if BSRs are broken every day, what's the point of having them in the first place? By this logic, we should get rid of the SIM all together because apparently nobody pays attention to it, anyway. Do you really think that changing one word is going to make more people abide by the SIM and help them develop good common sense about the sport? What good would changing that language really do, if any? Perhaps the SIM needs clarification, but certainly not misleading language. QuoteYou obviously are going to make your own choices regardless of others people years of experience. Is that right? Wow, you must know everything there is to know about me to make that kind of a judgment call. Yes, I will make my own choices, but based on the knowledge and experience that is already out there and that is (as far as everyone knows) not faulty. Is it not true that you are ultimately responsible for yourself in this sport? QuoteThis was your quote about someone else on a different thread, but I found it rather funny considering... Considering what? That I support having information make sense in the SIM? I have not claimed to know everything about the sport. My only claim is that your suggestion doesn't make sense. _Pm__ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billbooth 10 #95 April 14, 2005 QuoteNo, because it would be stupid to rely on a man made device. Judy Like a parachute? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #96 April 14, 2005 QuoteThe analogy doesn't work because driving 5mph may be more dangerous than 10mph. 5-mph OVER the speed limit. Driving faster because you have an air silly. Making a skydive you shouldn't because you have an AAD is silly. They both negate the increase in safety the airbag/AAD offer. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyangel2 2 #97 April 14, 2005 My answer is "no", and the reason why: Why change something I've had in my mind for all these years. It's worked so far.May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #98 April 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo, because it would be stupid to rely on a man made device. Judy Like a parachute? I didn't word it correctly for people to understand. Although I already explained this once, you probably didn't read that far. I won't RELY on any EXTRA OPTIONAL man made devices, it doesn't mean I won't install them on my gear, just means I plan on pulling all my own handles, unlike those how RELY on the extra's. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lostinspace 0 #99 April 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo, because it would be stupid to rely on a man made device. Judy Like a parachute? I didn't word it correctly for people to understand. Although I already explained this once, you probably didn't read that far. I won't RELY on any EXTRA OPTIONAL man made devices, it doesn't mean I won't install them on my gear, just means I plan on pulling all my own handles, unlike those how RELY on the extra's. Judy oh, like a reserve parachute? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #100 April 14, 2005 I don't base jump so a RESERVE parachute is NOT OPTIONAL. judyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
