0
bart

Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students

Recommended Posts

Just some short sentences.
To me, Chuck's answers look sensible and well-sorted. I don't see any offence or stomping at you in the first posts. Things got a little hotter then, both of you are sort of exchanging swings now. That's a well-known phenomenon in online conversation that lacks face-to-face contact. Also happened to me quite (too) often.
Audibles: I think a student should be able to read his alti as requested after passing level VII so that an audible is not necessary. (Apart from that - most people won't hear an audible in freefall with an open student helmet (ProTec or the like)) But I'm open to new approaches regarding audible use in freefall if they prove to be successful and safe (which will take a lot of time and "numbers")

I strongly oppose, however, the idea of using audibles as back-up devices for the canopy ride (based on the arguments I wrote down before).
The sky is not the limit. The ground is.

The Society of Skydiving Ducks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK,
I think I hear your points. I trained from Day One w/an Alti. I can't imagine jumping w/o one. I wonder how much of this is generational? I'm seeing a parallel between this, & academic dishonesty by some of today's Twenty_somethings. I came of age using technology (as it developed) to make things safer than yesteryear. You started jumping long before me in another era. Simply put, I view technology differently than you do. It's something worth considering as a part of this.

The Audible use @the Aussie DZ is two-fold. The first use, is as a hard deck indicator. Do you agree w/that use? It's essentially an extension of the AAD @that point. A student would only hear it if they'd already screwed up & were in immediate danger. The extra thousand feet or so they'd give that student could make the difference.

The canopy alarms seem like a more effective way to convey the same data to me. H*ll, I understand the Pavlovian references. I'm known to drool myself, sometimes :P. How about setting the canopy alarms lower than the turn points? Or, only have one canopy alarm @about 200'. To make sure they're turned & on final approach by then? That would make it the same as the hard deck alarm. There are strong opinions on both sides of this. Both by credible sources like yourself, & less-so ones like little ole me. I think it's interesting to note that other DZs have been utilizing these tools for sometime, now. Bart's DZ isn't the first one. Where are all the horror stories from these new methods? Yes, I depend on my instruments to a large extent. I'll eventually get to judge alts like you can. That takes years, Jim. I see these tools as a safer way of making sure I (& students) will still be around to get there one day. Would I develop that skill faster w/o the instruments? Most likely, I would think so. I could also smash myself to bits on a couple of failed landing attempts. I too bemoan the general pussification seen in some areas of life. I don't think this is one of them. It may not be as macho as "An Alti?! Juss shaddup & jump, you coward!" It is a safer road to the same destination, though, IMHO. From previous replies to threads on this. Audibles have been in use for student training for years already. The Incident forum isn't full of proof arguing against their use. Whether they've contributed to negative aspects you guys see in newer jumpers is confounding. I think it's certain that as time goes by. More & more DZs will adopt their use. So long as students aren't taught to always rely on their instruments (I wasn't)? It's another approach to the same objective.

P.S.: The BBQ is calling me. Gotta go B|.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

OK,
I think I hear your points. I trained from Day One w/an Alti. I can't imagine jumping w/o one. I wonder how much of this is generational? I'm seeing a parallel between this, & academic dishonesty by some of today's Twenty_somethings. I came of age using technology (as it developed) to make things safer than yesteryear. You started jumping long before me in another era. Simply put, I view technology differently than you do. It's something worth considering as a part of this.

The Audible use @the Aussie DZ is two-fold. The first use, is as a hard deck indicator. Do you agree w/that use? It's essentially an extension of the AAD @that point. A student would only hear it if they'd already screwed up & were in immediate danger. The extra thousand feet or so they'd give that student could make the difference.

The canopy alarms seem like a more effective way to convey the same data to me. H*ll, I understand the Pavlovian references. I'm known to drool myself, sometimes :P. How about setting the canopy alarms lower than the turn points? Or, only have one canopy alarm @about 200'. To make sure they're turned & on final approach by then? That would make it the same as the hard deck alarm. There are strong opinions on both sides of this. Both by credible sources like yourself, & less-so ones like little ole me. I think it's interesting to note that other DZs have been utilizing these tools for sometime, now. Bart's DZ isn't the first one. Where are all the horror stories from these new methods? Yes, I depend on my instruments to a large extent. I'll eventually get to judge alts like you can. That takes years, Jim. I see these tools as a safer way of making sure I (& students) will still be around to get there one day. Would I develop that skill faster w/o the instruments? Most likely, I would think so. I could also smash myself to bits on a couple of failed landing attempts. I too bemoan the general pussification seen in some areas of life. I don't think this is one of them. It may not be as macho as "An Alti?! Juss shaddup & jump, you coward!" It is a safer road to the same destination, though, IMHO. From previous replies to threads on this. Audibles have been in use for student training for years already. The Incident forum isn't full of proof arguing against their use. Whether they've contributed to negative aspects you guys see in newer jumpers is confounding. I think it's certain that as time goes by. More & more DZs will adopt their use. So long as students aren't taught to always rely on their instruments (I wasn't)? It's another approach to the same objective.

P.S.: The BBQ is calling me. Gotta go B|.



You know...I could almost accept an audible on a student as a "hard deck indicator" (Wake up, you're 15 seconds from impact)

for indicating points to turn or set up...I disagree. Eyes and awareness are necessarily ingrained, and instruments rob people of that opportunity to learn because they tend to respond.

Jump without an audible and put your logger in your pocket. In other words, no audible cues, only an alti on your wrist. Try to avoid looking at the alti. Your body clock will naturally respond, and chances are 99.9% you'll "hear" an audible, even tho it's not there. Your body becomes programmed to rely on something that cannot/should not be relied upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


As for the last thing Our young friend isn't the one who has been conducting the trial, he didn't start the thread. However his opinion like everyones is valid, but for sure all our opinions are valid. For sure interpreted in conjuction with the left hand column. Why your comparing his experience with my thread and not my experience I'm not really sure. I really dislike talking about the whole jump number experience thing, for sure it's important to have a solid background and experience when discussing these things but the I have more jumps than you kind of fades when you have instructors all with years and 1000's of jumps training students. So If your into reading the left column you would see I'm not a new comer either. Chuck may have lots of experience (I also read the left column;)) and I totally respect that, but does he have experience with these devices and students?, does he have experience training students to fly parachutes with out the use of radios?. I'm gathering from his responses that the answer is no. Here we have experience with both and plenty of experience with training students with out the use of radios!! I'm not theorising here, I'm actually communicating results from what we have actually done in the field. As I said the audible thing is really new for us but its working. oh and no offence taken:)



1. The reason people are responding to the newbie (and subsequently questioning his wisdom) is because he is making comments, just as people reply to you when you make them.

2. The newbie's opinion may be valid (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), but let's be honest - the odds of anyone's position being accurate go way up with long term exposure to the environment of which he or she opines. 2 years and 60 jumps? Sorry, but that's not the guy I'll hang mine or a student's safety on.

3. Do I need to swoop to know it adds risk? Do I need a pilot's license to understand the physics of flight? No and no. You are correct that I have never worked with students using audibles. That's because there's no need to. It's not the physical act of training student on audibles that I disagree with. It's the concept of adding to the complexity of canopy control unnecessarily, and for that I don't need trial and error. The point is simple. Radios are available, reliable, and cheap. In the hands of a qualified operator, radios can be used to actually TEACH. Audibles beep. That's all, just beep. That's not teaching.

4. I do have experience with no-radio operations as I was a no-radio baby. And you know what? It worked just fine for every student I watched when I was training. "Be here at 1000, be here at 500." What the hell is so hard about that?

Most importantly, you made the original post to solicit qualified (valid?) opinions, and then you argue with very qualified people who opine. If you like audibles on students, go for it. But why ask for input when you've clearly decided what is right?

And finally - why have you not answered the most important question in this entire thread....I'll ask it again.

Why the hell does the DZ just not buy some damn radios????????


1. I have no problem with anyone questioning the newbie responses or mine for that matter, I believe the line I used in the other thread before I posted here was fire away!! But the comments where using his experience against my arguements, and directing it at me, that's doesn't really make sense.

2. Everyone opinion is still valid escpecially when it comes from there own experiences.

3. No you don't need to swoop to know it adds risk but as a swooper you will understand the risks and the reality much better as a participant than as an observer. The same way as if you have used the audible with students like we have you will see the implications first hand through experience, and not just through theory. We have not found it at all ads any complexity but rather it allows the student to receive information in there ear while they are training to do there canopy flight visually, remember we have no radios but I'll get to that!! The fact is reading your comments I think we actually agree on how a parachute should be flown we just teach it in a different way.

4. I'm glad you have experience without radios but the be here and there at that height way of teaching doesn't allow for different flight paths when the winds change. I'm sure you told me that yourself. I think its more important for the student to have good theoretical knowledge about effects of wind, descent rates etc, then they can make these decisions themselves. And as I have said before they do a good job, maybe students can handle a little more than you give them credit for, I know ours can, but it depends on the method and there education.

And yes the big question, well I have actually answered this one before, but maybe not in reply to you chuck. The way the Federation here sees it is that if the radio fails the student needs to be able to land themselves anyway. So we prepare our student to be able to do just that. We just don't have the radio, they know when there parachute opens up it them that will get themselves down and they have a plan to do so. As I have also said I come from a place where we use radios and the thought of this scared me to death at the begining. But after seeing it work like this over the last 4 years I have seen it work very well. Our students are making decisions for themselves from day one. When they grow up and leave the nest they are independant and thinking canopy pilots. So to put it in the short for you we don't use radios because we feels it's better to spend more time teaching them about canopy flight and then allowing them to put in practice for themselves, you may not believe me chuck but its working and has done so here long before me and the audible!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...As I have also said I come from a place where we use radios and the thought of this scared me to death at the begining. But after seeing it work like this over the last 4 years I have seen it work very well. Our students are making decisions for themselves from day one. When they grow up and leave the nest they are independant and thinking canopy pilots...


Just curious: are the audibles used only as long as radios would have been used? I.e., after a certain point (usually, once they graduate AFF) the student goes without them?

I'm not an instructor (nor very experienced) but it seems to me that one useful function of radios is getting students through that phase where they have limited experience flying a landing pattern. I.e., at a time they have little or no experience visually judging altitude, little or no experience controling a canopy, little or no experience orienting themselves to their ground picture, and when they might also be close to being overwhelmed by all the other unfamiliar aspects of the experience. Since the audibles are useless for one important function that radios allow (helping the student learn to time their flare), I'm wondering when you think it is appropriate to wean them off of it. I.e., when exactly do you feel they are "grown up and ready to leave the nest"?

BTW, on my AFF level-1 jump I had a long spot, and barely made it back to the LZ after flying a direct line the whole way, and was unable to land following the preplanned landing pattern. (The other AFF-1 student who exited before me landed off.) I landed safely and uneventfully by being directed in by radio to do an opposite-turn pattern putting me on the preplanned final leg (with somewhat abbreviated downwind, base, and final legs due to my lack of altitude). An audible would have been less than useless for that jump, more likely to have distracted me than anything else. (And it probably would have been useless for the other student who landed off.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Students have weak skills, Chuck. I went w/what I thought was solid data. An Alti can look unblemished N shiny, & still fail. You want to write off my training DZ because one of their Altis failed???

I was there Chuck, not you. Had I heard the thousand foot beep in my ear when my Alti said 2K'? I'd have known something was wrong.



The brand new unblemished N shiny audible can fail as well.

And when it fails, the student has NO indication of it.

A visual altimeter, whether analog or digital, will appear to be wrong. The needle falls off, or the needle stops, or the digits start going up, or stop going down, or the display goes blank or all the segments come on, or something.

SOMETHING will give a clue that the device is not working.

What clue is there when the audible fails?

All this talk of students having weak skills really bothers me. It is NOT a solution to add a device, which can fail in many ways on its own, to compensate for students who are not yet ready to do what needs to be done to become a safe skydiver.

I liken this to the problem faced by all the makers of aviation-certified GPS devices.

A huge hurdle that the makers of certified GPS units faced was to be sure that the device told you when it had failed. Because without that clear indication, you won't be able to take the appropriate steps at the appropriate time.

If we are going to use an audible for pattern guidance, the user needs to know when it has failed.

For an experienced parachutist, he may be able to discern this without any help from the audible. He'll just see that something is not right, and he will use his other skills to execute a safe approach and landing.

But the student has no ability to identify that the device has failed, and is literally left hanging.

So, while I was trying to keep an open mind, I have to close it now.

If the audible has no mechanism to unambiguously indicate failure, then it should not be used by a student.


That's a good point paul. The devices we use as well as actually having 2 atlimeters inside them (meaning the device operates with a back up actually inside it) also hold charge when they get to 1000 feet. ie when it beeps at 1000 feet it has taken charge from the battery to be used for the alarms on the way down. If it doesn't beep then it wont function.

When we use the audible it is simply briefed to the student as a guide not a rule. They have it so they can learn what the heights look like without having to look at there altimeter. It's hard for someone to begin there pattern at between 1000 to 900 ft if they don't know what that looks like. If they don't here the beep at 900 feet then they know its not going to work but they already have a plan. They have taught it this way here for years without the audible. The problem has been that students tend to rely on the altimeter to give them the heights no matter how much you tell them to do it visually. Atleast in the begining, I think they actually pick it up pretty quick with the proper de-briefing. The audible is an attempt to get them to focus visually while still receiving the information about there height. To me it's just about education and how you brief the student, for us it is proving to be a plus but not a crutch;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know...I could almost accept an audible on a student as a "hard deck indicator" (Wake up, you're 15 seconds from impact)

Almost accept this use, Doug? You embrace AAD use, right? How is this different? In the same vein. How would a similar alarm @100' (If that was the only canopy alarm) be different? If a student is screwing up or just screwing around in the pattern. If they hear that long warning beeeep? They'll know to straighten it out as landing is imminent, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Apart from that - most people won't hear an audible in freefall with an open student helmet (ProTec or the like)

You're kidding, right? I've the volume turned down to halfway. The unit's sound hole is pointed away from my ear. Plus, I jump w/earplugs. It's still plenty loud in my open-face. Should that day ever come. The Aussie student will hear their hard deck alarm loud & clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



I'm glad you have experience without radios but the be here and there at that height way of teaching doesn't allow for different flight paths when the winds change. I'm sure you told me that yourself. I think its more important for the student to have good theoretical knowledge about effects of wind, descent rates etc, then they can make these decisions themselves. And as I have said before they do a good job, maybe students can handle a little more than you give them credit for, I know ours can, but it depends on the method and there education.

And yes the big question, well I have actually answered this one before, but maybe not in reply to you chuck. The way the Federation here sees it is that if the radio fails the student needs to be able to land themselves anyway. So we prepare our student to be able to do just that. We just don't have the radio, they know when there parachute opens up it them that will get themselves down and they have a plan to do so. As I have also said I come from a place where we use radios and the thought of this scared me to death at the begining. But after seeing it work like this over the last 4 years I have seen it work very well. Our students are making decisions for themselves from day one. When they grow up and leave the nest they are independant and thinking canopy pilots. So to put it in the short for you we don't use radios because we feels it's better to spend more time teaching them about canopy flight and then allowing them to put in practice for themselves, you may not believe me chuck but its working and has done so here long before me and the audible!!



When I said "be here at 1000 and here at 500", maybe I was being a bit too simplistic for you. I have taught thousands of students and I assure you they all knew more about flying canopies than students at the vast majority of DZ's. "Here" and "here" referred to a place in the pattern, not a place carved in stone without regard to wind changes. Of course that place changes if the wind does and my students understood that. Every DZ I worked at as an instructor, including my own DZ, did everything you talk about - theory, understanding, adaptability, all of that and more. I also assure you that my students "left the nest" as competent pilots too. You make it sound like you're DZ has something special going on that allows your students to progress better than students on radio at other DZ's, but the truth is they are just like students at every DZ - some get it quickly, others not so much.

You can teach students to know every tiny detail about flying canopies. Hell, you can teach them so well that they could teach it to others. But until they get under canopy you really have no idea how they will perform. There's no way you could. So why would you not put a radio on them so you can give instruction if it's needed? Wouldn't it be useful to be able to stop a student who heading for trouble and doesn't seem to be employing all that understanding you made sure they have? I can't imagine an audible device warning a student to maneuver away from [insert obstacle of choice here], but a qualified radio operator sure can. Face it, it would suck to see a kid fly into a 50,000 volt power line while you watch from the ground wishing like hell you could communicate with him, don't you think?

Regardless of how well they "get it" on the ground and no matter how much they know and understand intellectually, students, especially during the first few jumps, are prone to doing really dumb things at the worst possible moment, or doing absolutely nothing when action is needed. You know that as well as I do. Even if you choose not to "talk them down", equipping students with a radio gives the instructor another layer of control and gives the student another layer of safety.

Are you honestly telling me that your country's national organization encourages NOT using radios because (quoting you) "if the radio fails the student needs to be able to land themselves anyway"? In your reply above that's certainly what it sounded like you said. If that's case, why have the audible? After all, if it fails the student needs to be able to land without it anyway - just like the radio.

Using your federation's logic (assuming that comment was correct) why have freefall instructors? If the student loses them, he or she has to deal with freefall without them anyway. Why have a windsock on the field? If it falls down while the student is in the air, they'll have to figure out the wind direction on their own anyway.

You could certainly do things that way. After all, there was a time when people learned to jump with pretty much no assistance of any kind, so why not just do it that way? The answer of course is that we have a better way. We have developed a long list of best practices over many years and untold numbers of students. Those best practices include having the ability to communicate to students whenever possible.

Your students may be doing fine without radios, and if it works for you that's great. However, you can't say that putting radios on your students, even if used only for emergencies, wouldn't give you as an instructor another way to keep your students safe. It would, and that is undeniable.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

...As I have also said I come from a place where we use radios and the thought of this scared me to death at the begining. But after seeing it work like this over the last 4 years I have seen it work very well. Our students are making decisions for themselves from day one. When they grow up and leave the nest they are independant and thinking canopy pilots...


Just curious: are the audibles used only as long as radios would have been used? I.e., after a certain point (usually, once they graduate AFF) the student goes without them?

I'm not an instructor (nor very experienced) but it seems to me that one useful function of radios is getting students through that phase where they have limited experience flying a landing pattern. I.e., at a time they have little or no experience visually judging altitude, little or no experience controling a canopy, little or no experience orienting themselves to their ground picture, and when they might also be close to being overwhelmed by all the other unfamiliar aspects of the experience. Since the audibles are useless for one important function that radios allow (helping the student learn to time their flare), I'm wondering when you think it is appropriate to wean them off of it. I.e., when exactly do you feel they are "grown up and ready to leave the nest"?

BTW, on my AFF level-1 jump I had a long spot, and barely made it back to the LZ after flying a direct line the whole way, and was unable to land following the preplanned landing pattern. (The other AFF-1 student who exited before me landed off.) I landed safely and uneventfully by being directed in by radio to do an opposite-turn pattern putting me on the preplanned final leg (with somewhat abbreviated downwind, base, and final legs due to my lack of altitude). An audible would have been less than useless for that jump, more likely to have distracted me than anything else. (And it probably would have been useless for the other student who landed off.)



Yeah, what he said.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just some short sentences.
To me, Chuck's answers look sensible and well-sorted. I don't see any offence or stomping at you in the first posts. Things got a little hotter then, both of you are sort of exchanging swings now. That's a well-known phenomenon in online conversation that lacks face-to-face contact. Also happened to me quite (too) often.
Audibles: I think a student should be able to read his alti as requested after passing level VII so that an audible is not necessary. (Apart from that - most people won't hear an audible in freefall with an open student helmet (ProTec or the like)) But I'm open to new approaches regarding audible use in freefall if they prove to be successful and safe (which will take a lot of time and "numbers")

I strongly oppose, however, the idea of using audibles as back-up devices for the canopy ride (based on the arguments I wrote down before).



I swing face-to-face too. Verbally, of course.;)
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're in my ballpark w/that one, Chuckles. Wind noise in freefall has been measured @130dB. If you think that won't damage hearing? You can argue it w/OSHA, or any ENT or Audiologist worth their salt.

As for your swinging face to face post. Screw you & your quips, pal. Right back atchya. We've each said we're done w/the other. Why can't you let it go? Bruised, inflated ego in the way? Surely a skygod as exalted as yourself, has better things to do than quibble w/a lowly Newb like moi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You're in my ballpark w/that one, Chuckles. Wind noise in freefall has been measured @130dB. If you think that won't damage hearing? You can argue it w/OSHA, or any ENT or Audiologist worth their salt.

As for your swinging face to face post. Screw you & your quips, pal. Right back atchya. We've each said we're done w/the other. Why can't you let it go? Bruised, inflated ego in the way? Surely a skygod as exalted as yourself, has better things to do than quibble w/a lowly Newb like moi?



PiLFy is funny, but it sounds like I'm getting under his skin a bit.

Screw me and my quips. What a riot! That'll be great material for MY ballpark, where everyone can hear!!:ph34r::ph34r::o
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Students have weak skills, Chuck. I went w/what I thought was solid data. An Alti can look unblemished N shiny, & still fail. You want to write off my training DZ because one of their Altis failed???

I was there Chuck, not you. Had I heard the thousand foot beep in my ear when my Alti said 2K'? I'd have known something was wrong.



The brand new unblemished N shiny audible can fail as well.

And when it fails, the student has NO indication of it.

A visual altimeter, whether analog or digital, will appear to be wrong. The needle falls off, or the needle stops, or the digits start going up, or stop going down, or the display goes blank or all the segments come on, or something.

SOMETHING will give a clue that the device is not working.

What clue is there when the audible fails?

All this talk of students having weak skills really bothers me. It is NOT a solution to add a device, which can fail in many ways on its own, to compensate for students who are not yet ready to do what needs to be done to become a safe skydiver.

I liken this to the problem faced by all the makers of aviation-certified GPS devices.

A huge hurdle that the makers of certified GPS units faced was to be sure that the device told you when it had failed. Because without that clear indication, you won't be able to take the appropriate steps at the appropriate time.

If we are going to use an audible for pattern guidance, the user needs to know when it has failed.

For an experienced parachutist, he may be able to discern this without any help from the audible. He'll just see that something is not right, and he will use his other skills to execute a safe approach and landing.

But the student has no ability to identify that the device has failed, and is literally left hanging.

So, while I was trying to keep an open mind, I have to close it now.

If the audible has no mechanism to unambiguously indicate failure, then it should not be used by a student.


That's a good point paul. The devices we use as well as actually having 2 atlimeters inside them (meaning the device operates with a back up actually inside it) also hold charge when they get to 1000 feet. ie when it beeps at 1000 feet it has taken charge from the battery to be used for the alarms on the way down. If it doesn't beep then it wont function.

When we use the audible it is simply briefed to the student as a guide not a rule. They have it so they can learn what the heights look like without having to look at there altimeter. It's hard for someone to begin there pattern at between 1000 to 900 ft if they don't know what that looks like. If they don't here the beep at 900 feet then they know its not going to work but they already have a plan. They have taught it this way here for years without the audible. The problem has been that students tend to rely on the altimeter to give them the heights no matter how much you tell them to do it visually. Atleast in the begining, I think they actually pick it up pretty quick with the proper de-briefing. The audible is an attempt to get them to focus visually while still receiving the information about there height. To me it's just about education and how you brief the student, for us it is proving to be a plus but not a crutch;)


If the student was unduly focusing on the altimeter, how is it that he won't shift that same focus to waiting for the beep?

If he has a device that will help him, the student who is prone to undue focus will find a way to focus on whatever helpful device is provided.

Now, interestingly enough, we have me suggesting that maybe a device that only mostly works would be better than a device that always works.

Then, you could tell the student, "that audible USUALLY works, but maybe it won't. Either way, you are going to land, so be prepared to go it alone if you get nothing from the audible."

Maybe you need a ground person with a button labeled "Fail the student audible". Then you could be sure you wouldn't let the student get too comfy with the device.

(Only HALF joking.)

-paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You're in my ballpark w/that one, Chuckles. Wind noise in freefall has been measured @130dB. If you think that won't damage hearing? You can argue it w/OSHA, or any ENT or Audiologist worth their salt.



Totally my assumption, but I think what Chuck may have been getting at is that if you are wearing earplugs you may not be able to hear someone shouting at you under canopy to attract your attention. This could result in a canopy collision. Which could result in death.

So, in a nutshell, better deaf than dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Students have weak skills, Chuck. I went w/what I thought was solid data. An Alti can look unblemished N shiny, & still fail. You want to write off my training DZ because one of their Altis failed???

I was there Chuck, not you. Had I heard the thousand foot beep in my ear when my Alti said 2K'? I'd have known something was wrong.



The brand new unblemished N shiny audible can fail as well.

And when it fails, the student has NO indication of it.

A visual altimeter, whether analog or digital, will appear to be wrong. The needle falls off, or the needle stops, or the digits start going up, or stop going down, or the display goes blank or all the segments come on, or something.

SOMETHING will give a clue that the device is not working.

What clue is there when the audible fails?

All this talk of students having weak skills really bothers me. It is NOT a solution to add a device, which can fail in many ways on its own, to compensate for students who are not yet ready to do what needs to be done to become a safe skydiver.

I liken this to the problem faced by all the makers of aviation-certified GPS devices.

A huge hurdle that the makers of certified GPS units faced was to be sure that the device told you when it had failed. Because without that clear indication, you won't be able to take the appropriate steps at the appropriate time.

If we are going to use an audible for pattern guidance, the user needs to know when it has failed.

For an experienced parachutist, he may be able to discern this without any help from the audible. He'll just see that something is not right, and he will use his other skills to execute a safe approach and landing.

But the student has no ability to identify that the device has failed, and is literally left hanging.

So, while I was trying to keep an open mind, I have to close it now.

If the audible has no mechanism to unambiguously indicate failure, then it should not be used by a student.


That's a good point paul. The devices we use as well as actually having 2 atlimeters inside them (meaning the device operates with a back up actually inside it) also hold charge when they get to 1000 feet. ie when it beeps at 1000 feet it has taken charge from the battery to be used for the alarms on the way down. If it doesn't beep then it wont function.

When we use the audible it is simply briefed to the student as a guide not a rule. They have it so they can learn what the heights look like without having to look at there altimeter. It's hard for someone to begin there pattern at between 1000 to 900 ft if they don't know what that looks like. If they don't here the beep at 900 feet then they know its not going to work but they already have a plan. They have taught it this way here for years without the audible. The problem has been that students tend to rely on the altimeter to give them the heights no matter how much you tell them to do it visually. Atleast in the begining, I think they actually pick it up pretty quick with the proper de-briefing. The audible is an attempt to get them to focus visually while still receiving the information about there height. To me it's just about education and how you brief the student, for us it is proving to be a plus but not a crutch;)


If the student was unduly focusing on the altimeter, how is it that he won't shift that same focus to waiting for the beep?

If he has a device that will help him, the student who is prone to undue focus will find a way to focus on whatever helpful device is provided.

Now, interestingly enough, we have me suggesting that maybe a device that only mostly works would be better than a device that always works.

Then, you could tell the student, "that audible USUALLY works, but maybe it won't. Either way, you are going to land, so be prepared to go it alone if you get nothing from the audible."

Maybe you need a ground person with a button labeled "Fail the student audible". Then you could be sure you wouldn't let the student get too comfy with the device.

(Only HALF joking.)

-paul


Or Paul we could simplify the whole thing even further and just teach students not fly with their heads in their altimeters.

The pro-audible guys keep talking about how their students don't need radios because they teach them well enough that they don't need them. Kind of funny that they can teach 'em all that stuff and can't teach 'em to use an altimeter correctly.

Of course if their students were equipped with radios, the radio operator could remind them not to stare at their altimeters in real-time. Gee, what a concept.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

You're in my ballpark w/that one, Chuckles. Wind noise in freefall has been measured @130dB. If you think that won't damage hearing? You can argue it w/OSHA, or any ENT or Audiologist worth their salt.



Totally my assumption, but I think what Chuck may have been getting at is that if you are wearing earplugs you may not be able to hear someone shouting at you under canopy to attract your attention. This could result in a canopy collision. Which could result in death.

So, in a nutshell, better deaf than dead.


Uh, oh. Now yer gonna git it.:D
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

You're in my ballpark w/that one, Chuckles. Wind noise in freefall has been measured @130dB. If you think that won't damage hearing? You can argue it w/OSHA, or any ENT or Audiologist worth their salt.



Totally my assumption, but I think what Chuck may have been getting at is that if you are wearing earplugs you may not be able to hear someone shouting at you under canopy to attract your attention. This could result in a canopy collision. Which could result in death.

So, in a nutshell, better deaf than dead.


Uh, oh. Now yer gonna git it.:D


Yeah, I know! But was I close with my assumption?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I may be a fossil but I also have all the new gizmos too...but I think I use them differently than you do.

My audibles are set not as 'it's time to' but instead a 'you should have already' reminder.



+10

We should train people to be more like "fossils".

I dont use a modern audiable but an old skool time out, one beep, one reminder. I always set it 500ft under my deployment altitude. If i've pulled on the correct altitude it will beep when the canopy inflates, when I hear it and I'm still in freefall I know I'm late, I f'd up, I should have already pulled. Instructors have thought me to use the device like this when I started freefall training. NEVER RELY ON IT, ITS A BACKUP!

I dont think allowing 100ish jump wonders to use an audiable is a silver bullet solution. I've heard a 80 jump wonder tell me that he had one of those digital altimeters, but he had it set on speed instead of altitude (he did'nt know how it works) but it did'nt really matter because he had an audiable (just one). WTF!?!?! He was never traint on how to use such devices (audiable and dig altimeter)....

A couple of weeks ago another 60 jump wonder gives back a rented altimeter and says "I did'nt really need this thing, I just made a hop and pop." I replied "but what if things go south and you need to make decisions, time is a factor there." He sort of admitted I had a point.

There are experienced people that jump with two audibles in case one doesnt work... How is that for device dependency?

A 4 way team I know give each other shit for looking on their altimeter during a team dive.... IMO thats wrong.

With every safety gizmo you introduce you should give proper instruction on how to use it, be it a RSL, AAD, or audible. And this could IMO start from jump one. Its the attitude not the gizmo.
Parachute gear garage sale at :http://www.usedparachutes.eu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're in my ballpark w/that one, Chuckles. Wind noise in freefall has been measured @130dB. If you think that won't damage hearing? You can argue it w/OSHA, or any ENT or Audiologist worth their salt.



Totally my assumption, but I think what Chuck may have been getting at is that if you are wearing earplugs you may not be able to hear someone shouting at you under canopy to attract your attention. This could result in a canopy collision. Which could result in death.

So, in a nutshell, better deaf than dead.


Uh, oh. Now yer gonna git it.:D


Yeah, I know! But was I close with my assumption?


Yep.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that some of the conversation got a bit side-tracked but I want to pick up on Peters post and where my concerns lie.

Firstly I fully agree that a digital read-out gives better precision of read out and is better suited to canopy flight if used in this manner. But my main concern is in freefall where I believe an analog readout is less likely to be misinterpreted. It is far easier for a stressed student to misread 3000 for 8000 on a digital read out for example.

I realise I am shouting negatives (and boy do I admire Bart for his thick skin with the bashing he is taking:)
I must admit that I do like the concept of an audible for a hard-deck alarm - even if it does have downsides. I would suggest that it is only introduced post AFF and perhaps even that it is only used on solo jumps to prevent dependency. We already have jumpers who "can't" jump without an AAD.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
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.

0