Which would you trust more?

[Dougjumper 0]

Visual Alt. An Audible might screw up sooner since its electronic. Id rather go by my Visual but they screw up to.
Thats why I learn to eyeball the ground early on..I make it a habit.

[Tonto 1]

Eyes

Primary visual (Wrist)
Secondary visual (Legstrap, other jumpers alti)

Audio

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[kyros1 0]

I prefer my visible (although I wear also an audible)
since I can check altitude any time. Also during climp up I can check with fellow skydivers if it has correct reading.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I wonder how many people who claim that their eyes are their primary means of altitude awareness are being honest

Well Im being honest.

I can't tell 6 grand from 7 with any super degree of accuracy. I CAN however tell breakoff within 500 feet, and most times its 500 feet high. (Yeah, I get scared).

I can also tell when I am low and the ground is moving very fast at me.

So while I cant look at the ground and say.."I'm at 5,234 and 1/2 feet". I can look at the ground and say "Hey, Im normally tracking about now", and "Oh shit that planet is moving fast!!!!"

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Unstable 8]

I trust my Alti3 more than my beeper thing. Simple reason - You can set and program your beeper thing incorrectly, you can't screw up as easily on a visible alti.

=========Shaun ==========

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Eyes primarily. Ground getting big, being left all alone, deployment of previous groups etc.
Audibles, two off.
Body clock. Tells me to look at the alti.
Analogue alti.

Jumping camera I seldom look at my alti.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

I wonder how many people who claim that their eyes are their primary means of altitude awareness are being honest

Well Im being honest.

I can't tell 6 grand from 7 with any super degree of accuracy. I CAN however tell breakoff within 500 feet, and most times its 500 feet high. (Yeah, I get scared).

I can also tell when I am low and the ground is moving very fast at me.

So while I cant look at the ground and say.."I'm at 5,234 and 1/2 feet". I can look at the ground and say "Hey, Im normally tracking about now", and "Oh shit that planet is moving fast!!!!"

I wonder how much visual acuity has to do with it?

I have very good eyesight (passed RAF test to be a fighter pilot before they stopped recruiting) and I don't have problems judging breakoff altitudes or flare heights. My GF has not got good eyesight, even after correction, and she can't judge distances at all well.

We all have seen individuals who can't judge a flare -I know someone with over 2,000 jumps who PLFs about 1 landing in 5.

I would also venture a guess that the better skydivers (however you wish to evaluate that) are, on balance, those with better acuity, since in all disciplines judging your position and attitude is critical to success. Since the better skydivers tend to be those who become instructors, maybe they don't appreciate the visual difficulties that some of their students have.

In a somewhat related area, I teach a lot of people to fly R/C planes. This is another area where visual acuity is critically important. I have noticed that all the best R/C flyers have very good eyesight.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

No one is claiming to have the accuracy of a properly functioning altimeter by eyeballing it, but in either case, your eyes are the things with the final word on how high you are. it's not some democracy where if your eyes say you are low, but your audible hasn't sounded and your wrist says 8000ft, then you don't pull cause it's a two to one vote.

And never under-estimate the internal clock. When I hit the snooze button in the morning, you better believe that 6min and 59sec later my arm is going to be gunning for that button before I even hear the alarm go off again. (what can I say, I'm not a morning person)

[WrongWay 0]

I'd have to say visual. Too many things IMHO can go wrong with an audible. The batteries can die whilst in freefall, and let's face it, it's electronic. The "rule of thumb" as I've been told has been that the more mechanical parts something has, the more of a chance there is of it screwing up. Visual alti's are simple, so that's what I'll trust.

Now if you have TWO audibles, I think that's close (but not quite there) to being as reliable as having a visual because if one fails, you have another, and the chances of both failing are about the same as your visual failing.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.