wmw999 2,123 #51 January 9, 2014 Parachutist used to (and may still) have a statement that they'd put into no-pull deaths: "A working AAD might have made a difference in this fatality." A similar statement might apply to RSLs. In the world of skydiving, not having one isn't considered to be a contributor, in large part because of the culture (and necessity) of complete self-reliance. But a working RSL might have made a difference in some of these fatalities. 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
Remster 24 #52 January 9, 2014 QuoteBut a working RSL might have made a difference in some of these fatalities. Definitely. And, maybe its all semantics in the end, It's quite different than not having one being a contributing factor.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lyosha 46 #53 January 9, 2014 mjosparkyA “contributing factor” is something that by action or inaction contributes to the end result. An RSL is passive until the jumper does something to activate it. Not having one does not contribute anything to a jumper going in. Most jumpers go in because of decisions they make on the ground before they ever get on the plane. Sparky You're really picking at semantics here. Yes, an RSL could technically not be the contributing factor in those four cases, the lack of an RSL is the contributing factor. But why muddy the waters? The whole point is if there were armed RSLs the outcome could have been different... I mean, replace "RSL" in all my previous arguments with "the decision of the individual to purchase/jump a rig with no RSL" and we're back to square one - I still want to know and it's still relevant what the gear configuration jumped by the individual is (technically also entirely the choice of the individual). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doug_Davis 0 #54 January 9, 2014 Trafficdiver OSHA has no jurisdiction over skydiving. You're argument is invalid. I assume you are being sarcastic? In case you werent, my reference to OSHA was for explanatory reasons or as an example of how the legal definition of "contributing factor" actually works. Not because OSHA has anything to do with skydiving. mjosparky Skydiving is a recreational activity not a sweat shop. Each jumper is free to make his own choice on how to outfit his gear. The only limitation is it must be TSO’d. So I hate to tell you, but are really wrong. As for the DZO, camera flyers are “independent contractors” providing their own gear. Most DZ’s do not have the number of employees to fall under most of OSHA’s regulations so it is mute point. So I guess you are wrong. Sparky Im not wrong. See what I said above. Again my point wasnt about OSHA having anything to do with skydiving. It was explaining what the legal system in the US actually defines as a factor. Mitigating, aggravating or otherwise. Whether something is considered a factor or not is determined by the court system, not people arguing on an internet forum. Edited to add for clarity... Hypothetical: You run a DZ and school. Customer comes out to jump there. However your rental rigs arent equipped with RSL's. Customer cuts away during a malfunction and burns in with partially deployed reserve. Their spouse or family is going to be contacted by a lawyer. That lawyer is going to haul 10 other DZ owners or instructors in front of the jury all of whom use and recommend RSL's. He is going to ask them if use of the RSL is a recognized "industry best practice." And they will say yes. Your lack of use of RSL's will then be argued by the attorney for the plaintiffs as a contributing factor in the death of the spouse. The jury will decide (most likely in the plaintiffs favor as everyone else is using RSL's for their rentals). And your liability insurance company will pay out. The reason I know this is while Im a newbie skydiver, Im familiar with the law and liability because Im a former cop who now runs a whitewater kayaking and river rescue school. Im very familiar with industry best practices and liability, and what I must do to keep myself from getting sued or at least keep them from winning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topdocker 0 #55 January 9, 2014 chuckakers***************The AAD information on activation speed and altitude from each unit must be known to some, and that information should allow us to understand what the next failure was. IIRC, the AADs went back to the families, who declined to provide them to Airtec for examination. Mark Wow...really? Something I never thought about, but may be a good idea to let my loved ones know it's my wish to allow for any & all investigation be made, in the hope of furthering the safety of the sport..."if' something ever happens that is. Yeah I may need to advise my family not to be selfish idiots. It might considered be too harsh to deem people who would do that as such, but I'm standing by it because they're actively impeding efforts to prevent other people from suffering the fate of their loved ones. And I assume skydivers have informed the families how important the data in these AADs are, and they still don't want to send them in. If this would have happened in 'normal life', let's say a car crash with a videocamera in the car the families don't have the option to keep the camera, do they? A camera is no different than any other property. Unless it is suspected of containing evidence of criminal activity, is somehow connected to a suspected crime, or is stolen, police would not be justified in seizing it. Likewise the footage on the camera is the property of the person who shot it (or the copyright holder in the case of someone shooting for hire) and is not subject to seizure without cause. I couldn't tell you what the laws are about cops demanding to see video footage in the event of an accident, but seizing a camera or master footage without probable cause would be a pretty clear 4th Amendment violation. In many jurisdictions, everything involved in a skydiving incident may be seized as evidence. When I had my incident, they seized every camera on the jump, all my gear, including my helmet, and sent them to evidence. The sheriff then turned that stuff over to the FAA for inspection. The FAA is requesting local law enforcement keep more and more stuff on incidents and to treat the area (and person) as a crime scene. So, I think in the future, we will see the FAA or local law enforcement contacting the AAD manufacturers for data download. topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #56 January 9, 2014 topdocker In many jurisdictions, everything involved in a skydiving incident may be seized as evidence. When I had my incident, they seized every camera on the jump, all my gear, including my helmet, and sent them to evidence. The sheriff then turned that stuff over to the FAA for inspection. The FAA is requesting local law enforcement keep more and more stuff on incidents and to treat the area (and person) as a crime scene. So, I think in the future, we will see the FAA or local law enforcement contacting the AAD manufacturers for data download. top I don't want to venture into SC territory but can you explain how they are defining incidents as crime scenes? I don't get the connections or the rationale."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #57 January 9, 2014 Quote I don't want to venture into SC territory but can you explain how they are defining incidents as crime scenes? I don't get the connections or the rationale. Like any aviation incident, the local authorities usually don't have the technical expertise to conduct a knowledgeable investigation...it's the policy of many departments to grab anything even remotely related and hold it for further investigation. Especially in the case of a fatality. They'll question witness,photograph the scene, limit access...it's better for them to get everything 'now' and not need it, than try to put it all back together later. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #58 January 10, 2014 lyosha***A “contributing factor” is something that by action or inaction contributes to the end result. An RSL is passive until the jumper does something to activate it. Not having one does not contribute anything to a jumper going in. Most jumpers go in because of decisions they make on the ground before they ever get on the plane. Sparky You're really picking at semantics here. Yes, an RSL could technically not be the contributing factor in those four cases, the lack of an RSL is the contributing factor. But why muddy the waters? The whole point is if there were armed RSLs the outcome could have been different... I mean, replace "RSL" in all my previous arguments with "the decision of the individual to purchase/jump a rig with no RSL" and we're back to square one - I still want to know and it's still relevant what the gear configuration jumped by the individual is (technically also entirely the choice of the individual). Having been involved in more fatality investigations then I care to remember, I can assure you I am not mudding the waters. Any investigative report on a fatality of any type is a game of semantics. The words you put in ink today you may have to explain in court tomorrow. If it "technically not be the contributing factor" don't call it one. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #59 January 10, 2014 bluebird932 No. I think its not good when somebody will think they died because they didnt have RSL. The reason is they died because they didn't get a parachute over their heads in time. Blue, you're being a bit simplistic. We're all big boys and girls here. We get that the death was from a failure to land with a properly functioning parachute. The rest of us are digging a bit deeper than that. Y'all can do the back n forth on RSL's forever if you like but there are a few undeniable facts. Fact: Every year jumpers die because they fail to deploy a reserve after chopping or fail to deploy it with sufficient altitude to check their descent for landing - some because they start the sequence late and some because they had the time to complete the reserve deployment but for some reason still failed to. Fact: (this one's for you, Blue) In nearly every case in which someone without an RSL died, the accident analysis reveals that an RSL might have - and in many case almost certainly would have - saved the jumpers life. Fact: Historically there have been many, many more deaths in incidents where an RSL would have likely saved the jumper than in incidents where the RSL played a role in a fatality. Argue all you want but you can not deny the facts. If a person chooses not to jump with an RSL, so be it. It's their choice just as jumping without an AAD is. However, from a purely statistical point of view the facts support the use of RSL's as a way to reduce the risk of bouncing. For the record, I have 11 reserve rides, 10 that required whacking a main. I'm pretty sure I've got the process down. Still, I just took delivery of a new rig (a sweet new Curv, thank you Sandy and company) and for the first time in 28 years I have an RSL equipped system. Do what you want folks, but I've decided to go to an RSL and believe your chances are better with one as well.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bluebird932 0 #60 January 10, 2014 Not everybody understad if we write with 2 meanings. There are plenty jumpers they just jump without any understanding and education. Few weeks ago I met one experienced wingsuit pilot and base jumper, one of those that fly few meters above the ground and I had to tell him why RSL is sometimes dangerous. First time he heard about it. Few days ago I was laughing because ffriend of mine didn't know that is easier to have malfunction with eliptical canopies. Beside that don't forget about students because they also read this forum and if you say something with your experience for them is holy. I don't like RSL because I like my universal algorithm. If you have malfunction with hard spining it always works 1. Higher deployment. 2. Time to get stable 3. Reserve in stable position but RSL doesnt ask you how hard is your line twist or what is your body position Another problem in my opinion is bad association in the air. If everybody go lower we go lower as well, there is no time to stabilise and that's why RSL is sometimes better. and also not always people are trained how to get stable quickly after cutting away. It would be good to spend some time in tunel and learn it instead of worthless things Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hellis 0 #61 January 10, 2014 A few things I want answers on regarding this post, but I don't have time for it all. I think someone else will ask the other questions. But one thing I really need to know. How do you train how to get stable after a chop in a windtunnel? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bluebird932 0 #62 January 10, 2014 I know it's not the same but you can train how to do it quicker. You can just twist yourself in many different ways then come back to stable position. It's always helpful and beneficial even if you have 2 seconds better time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #63 January 10, 2014 bluebird932Not everybody understad if we write with 2 meanings. There are plenty jumpers they just jump without any understanding and education. Few weeks ago I met one experienced wingsuit pilot and base jumper, one of those that fly few meters above the ground and I had to tell him why RSL is sometimes dangerous. First time he heard about it. Few days ago I was laughing because ffriend of mine didn't know that is easier to have malfunction with eliptical canopies.Quote Ok then, let's compare real-world notes on this. Please tell me how an RSL can sometimes be dangerous when used under the right circumstances (not during CReW, when using large cameras, etc.), and how statistically those dangers outweigh using one. While you're at it look back in history at real-world incidents - those who were hurt or killed using an RSL vs those hurt or killed in incidents in which an RSL may have or would have saved them. I think you'll find I have actual history on my side. Beside that don't forget about students because they also read this forum and if you say something with your experience for them is holy.Quote Yes, the noobs do read this stuff. That's precisely why I get on here to debunk the self-made and often dangerous techniques and crap sky-science (45 degree rule, freeflyers should exit first, etc). As for young jumpers taking my word as holy, that's their choice. But I'd sure as hell rather them take my word as holy than the words of people who ignore facts and history and insist they know better. I don't like RSL because I like my universal algorithm. If you have malfunction with hard spining it always works 1. Higher deployment. 2. Time to get stable 3. Reserve in stable position but RSL doesnt ask you how hard is your line twist or what is your body positionQuote Yes, that works....right up until it doesn't. An RSL, just like an AAD or the reserve itself, is used because things don't always go as planned. Here's a great recent example. I have a friend with thousands of jumps who is very accomplished in the sport. He had a mal at Nationals last year and ended up getting dirty low. He chopped and his RSL got his reserve out in time for him to saddle in at a couple hundred feet. Afterward he readily admitted that had he not had an RSL he would have bounced. Your "algorithm" looks great right up until things don't actually happen that way. After that you need to stack the odds in your favor. That's what reserves are for. That's what AAD's are for, and that's what RSL's and Skyhooks are for. What if you get taken out during an FS jump and wake up at 2K and THEN have a mal. Oops, there goes your best laid plans right out the window. Now you are in a situation where an RSL might truly make the difference. Your number 1 (higher deployment) is now gone, your number 2 (time to get stable) is also gone, and your number 3 (reserve in stable position) is at that point a luxury. We don't jump RSL's because we would rather dump low and not care about stability after we chop. We wear them because that scenario may unfold in spite of our "algorithms". Bottom line: the odds of dying because of an RSL are statistically FAR lower than dying because one was needed and wasn't there. Another problem in my opinion is bad association in the air. If everybody go lower we go lower as well, there is no time to stabilise and that's why RSL is sometimes better. and also not always people are trained how to get stable quickly after cutting away. It would be good to spend some time in tunel and learn it instead of worthless thingsQuote I assume you mean that when a group goes lower than planned before breaking off that others get sucked into going with them. If that's what you mean I refer you to my statement above that things don't always go as planned. In fact, if that's what you meant, I'd say you just made my point for me. As for teaching people to get stable quickly after chopping, exactly how would one train for that? Should we have a cutaway rig at every DZ so people can practice whacking mains? And tunnel training for regaining stability is fine, but it can't reproduce getting slung away after chopping a spinning mal or other more violent mals. Besides that, stability IS NEVER a bigger priority than altitude after chopping. NEVER! Once again, look at history. You might be bullet-proof but the jumpers who have died were not. Don't want to wear an RSL? Don't. Just understand that you are at greater risk of eating dirt without one than with.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bluebird932 0 #64 January 10, 2014 I don't have time for all these statistics, I know sometimes it make sense but it depends what jump and what canopy. I'll tell you just one example. Last year fatality in Poland. He had 1800 jumps, instructor. After cutting away with RSL his reserve was entangled in camera. You can see something similar here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRYa_pXJ_p4 comments to these video are also interesting, one of them: jj85883: "I've been in the sport 22 years and have about 20 cutaways in 6000 jumps, and some cutaways way down in the basement, and I dont know the man's qualification, but i never deploy a reserve unstable like he did. Seen a couple of jumpers get killed doing that." I forgot to tell you I have also AAD in my algorithm for the case if I would try to get stable too long, audible altimeter and I know... you're right, sometimes is not easy when everybody go too low, but I read somewhere now more experienced jumpers like to deploy higher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lyosha 46 #65 January 10, 2014 bluebird932Not everybody understad if we write with 2 meanings. There are plenty jumpers they just jump without any understanding and education. Few weeks ago I met one experienced wingsuit pilot and base jumper, one of those that fly few meters above the ground and I had to tell him why RSL is sometimes dangerous. First time he heard about it. Few days ago I was laughing because ffriend of mine didn't know that is easier to have malfunction with eliptical canopies. Beside that don't forget about students because they also read this forum and if you say something with your experience for them is holy. I don't like RSL because I like my universal algorithm. If you have malfunction with hard spining it always works 1. Higher deployment. 2. Time to get stable 3. Reserve in stable position but RSL doesnt ask you how hard is your line twist or what is your body position Another problem in my opinion is bad association in the air. If everybody go lower we go lower as well, there is no time to stabilise and that's why RSL is sometimes better. and also not always people are trained how to get stable quickly after cutting away. It would be good to spend some time in tunel and learn it instead of worthless things What happens if a student has to cut away? What you are saying is extremely dangerous - as you mentioned there are people like me without much experience reading these forums looking for a first rig to buy... you want them to buy a rig without an RSL? Should I buy a Velo loaded at 2.5 to stick into that rig while I'm at it? I mean, I'm never going to learn harness turns on a Navigator... As you said there are newbies like me reading this who might still be jittery getting out of the damn plane. I don't know if you remember what AFF was like, but my first jump finding the damn pilot chute was a struggle. I cannot imagine my first cutaway. These are the people you want to advise to instead of getting/using gear that statistically increases their odds of survival in an emergency, to go to a wind tunnel and practice getting stable? Boy I hope that helps them not freak out when that second handle moves on their body too... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trafficdiver 8 #66 January 10, 2014 Not being sarcastic at all. You're wrong. Not wearing an RSL is not a contributing factor legally on skydiving. You can sign a waiver saying your risk your life away. In a business you can not sign a waiver putting your employees at risk. I have asked OSHA trainers during my OSHA 30 course if I could sign a waiver to get out of their fines and, as expected, I couldn't. Therefore not using an "arguable" saftey device (I use one myself) is not a contributing factor legally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 370 #67 January 10, 2014 bluebird932I don't have time for all these statistics, I know sometimes it make sense but it depends what jump and what canopy. I'll tell you just one example. Last year fatality in Poland. He had 1800 jumps, instructor. After cutting away with RSL his reserve was entangled in camera. You can see something similar here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRYa_pXJ_p4 comments to these video are also interesting, one of them: jj85883: "I've been in the sport 22 years and have about 20 cutaways in 6000 jumps, and some cutaways way down in the basement, and I dont know the man's qualification, but i never deploy a reserve unstable like he did. Seen a couple of jumpers get killed doing that." I forgot to tell you I have also AAD in my algorithm for the case if I would try to get stable too long, audible altimeter and I know... you're right, sometimes is not easy when everybody go too low, but I read somewhere now more experienced jumpers like to deploy higher Wow, that's rich. You won't use an RSL but you admit that you have an AAD in case you "would try to get stable too long". That's utterly ridiculous, my friend. Folks, what Blue is advocating goes against every known best practice in skydiving. Could you have an entanglement because of an unstable reserve deployment? Of course. Are the chances of it it happening greater than that of going in by staying in freefall after a cutaway? Not even close. Look up the stats on accidents and you'll see that is true. That's why every instructional doctrine I've ever seen instructs jumpers to deploy their reserve immediately upon a successful cutaway. So who's right, Blue or the rest of the world? As I said in a previous post and will repeat for the noobs, it is NEVER alright to sacrifice altitude for stability after chopping. The odds of an entanglement - especially on modern gear - are very slim even if the jumper is unstable. I jump at a large DZ and see chops on a very regular basis and have NEVER seen a jumper with an RSL have an entanglement after chopping. In fact, I've been the sport for nearly 30 years and have observed literally dozens - maybe hundreds - of cutaways and have NEVER personally known a single jumper that had a post-chop entanglement, RSL or not. However, I have known several that went in because they didn't have an RSL, including a dear friend with almost 1,000 jumps who is on the list in the original post. Blue, you can do things any way you want. I wish you luck. Given your choice of procedures, you may need it.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 370 #68 January 10, 2014 Doug_Davis***....And your liability insurance company will pay out. There is no insurance available in the United States that covers liability for skydiving activities.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bluebird932 0 #69 January 10, 2014 As Chuckakers said many people died because they were catching stable position too long. RSL was designed for students. With bigger canopies like Navigator line twits are not so aggresive so usually it's not so dangerous to deploy reserve straight after cuting away. I think statistics dont say that with RSL is better but "RSL or AAD" I prefer just AAD that will pull my reserve in last moment, but it's just my choice. Even if statistics say its better it doesnt mean that it's better for every particular case. I don't want to advise you anything. Ask your instructor. Here is another unstable reserve deployment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkLqTbDHgtg If my kids will want to jump (I won't be happy about it) I'll send to wind tunel for at least one hour and he will twist hisself in every posiible way then he can go and jump For me stability is a bigger priority than altitude after chopping but only until is not too low. That's why I have AAD One more thing, that's true, that position with head up straight after cuting away is usualy not too bad to pull reserve but not always, that's why I prefer to do it myself and keep that choice for me not RSL that does it automaticaly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wolfriverjoe 1,341 #70 January 11, 2014 bluebird932... I think statistics dont say that with RSL is better but "RSL or AAD" I prefer just AAD that will pull my reserve in last moment, but it's just my choice. Even if statistics say its better it doesnt mean that it's better for every particular case. I don't want to advise you anything. Ask your instructor. I don't get the "RSL or AAD" argument. They are 2 separate, independent systems. Nothing about having or not having one has any effect on having the other. You do realize that an AAD won't activate after a chop if your freefall speed is too low, right? If the AAD doesn't see enough speed, it will wait until you accelerate to a high enough speed before it fires. There have been a few (not a lot, but more than a couple) where the AAD didn't fire until it was way too late because of this. If the statistics say it's better in most cases, why do you seem to be fighting against it? Outside of CRW and camera, RSLs do far more good than bad. You are basically making the "I won't wear a seatbelt because I want to be thrown clear in an accident" argument. The chances of being successfully thrown clear of a car accident are miniscule. You are taking the very, very few cases where it was "bad" and ignoring the many, many cases where having it was essential and not having it turned out to be fatal (with no guarantee that it would have saved the people) I agree that it is your choice, but your reasons and arguments are pretty flawed."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites yoink 321 #71 January 11, 2014 Because he can't conceive of a situation where he doesn't have enough time to get stable. Bluebird - You have a canopy collision at 1000 feet. It tears your main and throws you into a spin. Your AAD won't save you. Regaining stability won't save you. An RSL might. Your 'universal' algorithm has flaws. Too many to suggest it's the best way of doing things. Particularly for beginners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hellis 0 #72 January 11, 2014 What is your experience? How many cutaways do you have? If none, how many balloonjumps do you have? Or helijumps, or paragliderjumps, or BASE? Just want to know how much there is behind your words. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #73 January 11, 2014 QuoteThe reason I know this is while Im a newbie skydiver, Im familiar with the law and liability because Im a former cop who now runs a whitewater kayaking and river rescue school. Im very familiar with industry best practices and liability, and what I must do to keep myself from getting sued or at least keep them from winning. Your being a “former cop” mentality is showing through. I am a former Fire Capt. and I spent 30 years dealing with cops that thought they had all the answers. You don’t know the “law”, you know what some “laws” say not what they mean. Unless you have passed the bar and I am sure you haven’t. As was mentioned above there is no liability insurance available for skydiving. One more thing you didn’t know. There is nothing in your prior life that can be applied to skydiving. QuoteIn fact Im surprised by the lack of investigations. Have you ever been involved in an investigation or even seen the results of one? But you will post your opinion on their validly. I refer to the first line in my post. Until you learn something about the issue at hand maybe you should listen more and STFU. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bluebird932 0 #74 January 11, 2014 O course I understand that you need to have above 35 m/s to activate your AAD so if you cutaway too low it doesnt work. Cliff Schmucker (VIP from Airtec) checked that we can't cutaway lower than 1000 feet (for Cypres Expert) Statistic say they might be helpful in most cases but we don't know which part of these cases we can have. RSL doenst leave any choice. Sometimes is better with RSL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeO4uY8uruQ but sometimes is dangerous http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tF6iXI70-Y#t=53 In my opinion there is really no point to deploy low. I don't care if somebody will say that I'm pussy. If you like free falling you can jump twice instead. I know about guy with 25 000 jumps on Sabre without cuttingaway and he doesn't care that somebody will call him pussy because of Sabre and for me it's also not shame to deploy higher. A live dog is better off than a dead lion With canopy collision at 1000 feet RSL might help but reserve handle might help as well. I agree sometimes only skyhook can help you I'm not writing about my experience even if I would have better because it shouldn't make my arguments stronger or weaker. Another question, how many of you doesn't jump with camera? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bluebird932 0 #75 January 11, 2014 Yes Hellis, you are're right I guess you want to say that first seconds after cuting away is not easy to get stable because it's similar to 0 wind exit, same like with base, balloon, etc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 3 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
bluebird932 0 #64 January 10, 2014 I don't have time for all these statistics, I know sometimes it make sense but it depends what jump and what canopy. I'll tell you just one example. Last year fatality in Poland. He had 1800 jumps, instructor. After cutting away with RSL his reserve was entangled in camera. You can see something similar here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRYa_pXJ_p4 comments to these video are also interesting, one of them: jj85883: "I've been in the sport 22 years and have about 20 cutaways in 6000 jumps, and some cutaways way down in the basement, and I dont know the man's qualification, but i never deploy a reserve unstable like he did. Seen a couple of jumpers get killed doing that." I forgot to tell you I have also AAD in my algorithm for the case if I would try to get stable too long, audible altimeter and I know... you're right, sometimes is not easy when everybody go too low, but I read somewhere now more experienced jumpers like to deploy higher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lyosha 46 #65 January 10, 2014 bluebird932Not everybody understad if we write with 2 meanings. There are plenty jumpers they just jump without any understanding and education. Few weeks ago I met one experienced wingsuit pilot and base jumper, one of those that fly few meters above the ground and I had to tell him why RSL is sometimes dangerous. First time he heard about it. Few days ago I was laughing because ffriend of mine didn't know that is easier to have malfunction with eliptical canopies. Beside that don't forget about students because they also read this forum and if you say something with your experience for them is holy. I don't like RSL because I like my universal algorithm. If you have malfunction with hard spining it always works 1. Higher deployment. 2. Time to get stable 3. Reserve in stable position but RSL doesnt ask you how hard is your line twist or what is your body position Another problem in my opinion is bad association in the air. If everybody go lower we go lower as well, there is no time to stabilise and that's why RSL is sometimes better. and also not always people are trained how to get stable quickly after cutting away. It would be good to spend some time in tunel and learn it instead of worthless things What happens if a student has to cut away? What you are saying is extremely dangerous - as you mentioned there are people like me without much experience reading these forums looking for a first rig to buy... you want them to buy a rig without an RSL? Should I buy a Velo loaded at 2.5 to stick into that rig while I'm at it? I mean, I'm never going to learn harness turns on a Navigator... As you said there are newbies like me reading this who might still be jittery getting out of the damn plane. I don't know if you remember what AFF was like, but my first jump finding the damn pilot chute was a struggle. I cannot imagine my first cutaway. These are the people you want to advise to instead of getting/using gear that statistically increases their odds of survival in an emergency, to go to a wind tunnel and practice getting stable? Boy I hope that helps them not freak out when that second handle moves on their body too... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #66 January 10, 2014 Not being sarcastic at all. You're wrong. Not wearing an RSL is not a contributing factor legally on skydiving. You can sign a waiver saying your risk your life away. In a business you can not sign a waiver putting your employees at risk. I have asked OSHA trainers during my OSHA 30 course if I could sign a waiver to get out of their fines and, as expected, I couldn't. Therefore not using an "arguable" saftey device (I use one myself) is not a contributing factor legally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #67 January 10, 2014 bluebird932I don't have time for all these statistics, I know sometimes it make sense but it depends what jump and what canopy. I'll tell you just one example. Last year fatality in Poland. He had 1800 jumps, instructor. After cutting away with RSL his reserve was entangled in camera. You can see something similar here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRYa_pXJ_p4 comments to these video are also interesting, one of them: jj85883: "I've been in the sport 22 years and have about 20 cutaways in 6000 jumps, and some cutaways way down in the basement, and I dont know the man's qualification, but i never deploy a reserve unstable like he did. Seen a couple of jumpers get killed doing that." I forgot to tell you I have also AAD in my algorithm for the case if I would try to get stable too long, audible altimeter and I know... you're right, sometimes is not easy when everybody go too low, but I read somewhere now more experienced jumpers like to deploy higher Wow, that's rich. You won't use an RSL but you admit that you have an AAD in case you "would try to get stable too long". That's utterly ridiculous, my friend. Folks, what Blue is advocating goes against every known best practice in skydiving. Could you have an entanglement because of an unstable reserve deployment? Of course. Are the chances of it it happening greater than that of going in by staying in freefall after a cutaway? Not even close. Look up the stats on accidents and you'll see that is true. That's why every instructional doctrine I've ever seen instructs jumpers to deploy their reserve immediately upon a successful cutaway. So who's right, Blue or the rest of the world? As I said in a previous post and will repeat for the noobs, it is NEVER alright to sacrifice altitude for stability after chopping. The odds of an entanglement - especially on modern gear - are very slim even if the jumper is unstable. I jump at a large DZ and see chops on a very regular basis and have NEVER seen a jumper with an RSL have an entanglement after chopping. In fact, I've been the sport for nearly 30 years and have observed literally dozens - maybe hundreds - of cutaways and have NEVER personally known a single jumper that had a post-chop entanglement, RSL or not. However, I have known several that went in because they didn't have an RSL, including a dear friend with almost 1,000 jumps who is on the list in the original post. Blue, you can do things any way you want. I wish you luck. Given your choice of procedures, you may need it.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #68 January 10, 2014 Doug_Davis***....And your liability insurance company will pay out. There is no insurance available in the United States that covers liability for skydiving activities.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bluebird932 0 #69 January 10, 2014 As Chuckakers said many people died because they were catching stable position too long. RSL was designed for students. With bigger canopies like Navigator line twits are not so aggresive so usually it's not so dangerous to deploy reserve straight after cuting away. I think statistics dont say that with RSL is better but "RSL or AAD" I prefer just AAD that will pull my reserve in last moment, but it's just my choice. Even if statistics say its better it doesnt mean that it's better for every particular case. I don't want to advise you anything. Ask your instructor. Here is another unstable reserve deployment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkLqTbDHgtg If my kids will want to jump (I won't be happy about it) I'll send to wind tunel for at least one hour and he will twist hisself in every posiible way then he can go and jump For me stability is a bigger priority than altitude after chopping but only until is not too low. That's why I have AAD One more thing, that's true, that position with head up straight after cuting away is usualy not too bad to pull reserve but not always, that's why I prefer to do it myself and keep that choice for me not RSL that does it automaticaly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,341 #70 January 11, 2014 bluebird932... I think statistics dont say that with RSL is better but "RSL or AAD" I prefer just AAD that will pull my reserve in last moment, but it's just my choice. Even if statistics say its better it doesnt mean that it's better for every particular case. I don't want to advise you anything. Ask your instructor. I don't get the "RSL or AAD" argument. They are 2 separate, independent systems. Nothing about having or not having one has any effect on having the other. You do realize that an AAD won't activate after a chop if your freefall speed is too low, right? If the AAD doesn't see enough speed, it will wait until you accelerate to a high enough speed before it fires. There have been a few (not a lot, but more than a couple) where the AAD didn't fire until it was way too late because of this. If the statistics say it's better in most cases, why do you seem to be fighting against it? Outside of CRW and camera, RSLs do far more good than bad. You are basically making the "I won't wear a seatbelt because I want to be thrown clear in an accident" argument. The chances of being successfully thrown clear of a car accident are miniscule. You are taking the very, very few cases where it was "bad" and ignoring the many, many cases where having it was essential and not having it turned out to be fatal (with no guarantee that it would have saved the people) I agree that it is your choice, but your reasons and arguments are pretty flawed."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #71 January 11, 2014 Because he can't conceive of a situation where he doesn't have enough time to get stable. Bluebird - You have a canopy collision at 1000 feet. It tears your main and throws you into a spin. Your AAD won't save you. Regaining stability won't save you. An RSL might. Your 'universal' algorithm has flaws. Too many to suggest it's the best way of doing things. Particularly for beginners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hellis 0 #72 January 11, 2014 What is your experience? How many cutaways do you have? If none, how many balloonjumps do you have? Or helijumps, or paragliderjumps, or BASE? Just want to know how much there is behind your words. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #73 January 11, 2014 QuoteThe reason I know this is while Im a newbie skydiver, Im familiar with the law and liability because Im a former cop who now runs a whitewater kayaking and river rescue school. Im very familiar with industry best practices and liability, and what I must do to keep myself from getting sued or at least keep them from winning. Your being a “former cop” mentality is showing through. I am a former Fire Capt. and I spent 30 years dealing with cops that thought they had all the answers. You don’t know the “law”, you know what some “laws” say not what they mean. Unless you have passed the bar and I am sure you haven’t. As was mentioned above there is no liability insurance available for skydiving. One more thing you didn’t know. There is nothing in your prior life that can be applied to skydiving. QuoteIn fact Im surprised by the lack of investigations. Have you ever been involved in an investigation or even seen the results of one? But you will post your opinion on their validly. I refer to the first line in my post. Until you learn something about the issue at hand maybe you should listen more and STFU. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bluebird932 0 #74 January 11, 2014 O course I understand that you need to have above 35 m/s to activate your AAD so if you cutaway too low it doesnt work. Cliff Schmucker (VIP from Airtec) checked that we can't cutaway lower than 1000 feet (for Cypres Expert) Statistic say they might be helpful in most cases but we don't know which part of these cases we can have. RSL doenst leave any choice. Sometimes is better with RSL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeO4uY8uruQ but sometimes is dangerous http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tF6iXI70-Y#t=53 In my opinion there is really no point to deploy low. I don't care if somebody will say that I'm pussy. If you like free falling you can jump twice instead. I know about guy with 25 000 jumps on Sabre without cuttingaway and he doesn't care that somebody will call him pussy because of Sabre and for me it's also not shame to deploy higher. A live dog is better off than a dead lion With canopy collision at 1000 feet RSL might help but reserve handle might help as well. I agree sometimes only skyhook can help you I'm not writing about my experience even if I would have better because it shouldn't make my arguments stronger or weaker. Another question, how many of you doesn't jump with camera? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bluebird932 0 #75 January 11, 2014 Yes Hellis, you are're right I guess you want to say that first seconds after cuting away is not easy to get stable because it's similar to 0 wind exit, same like with base, balloon, etc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
