skr

Eeeeeee ... I'm more transparent than I thought! >Someday the mountain might get 'em >but the law never will It's funny you should say that. I spent my teenage years in liquor running country with images of those cars that stuck way up in the back when they were empty so they would look level when carrying a load. That whole scene, the drivers, the folklore, the tales of famous chases, was part of our mythology. >That's just a little bit more >than the law would allow... Well, it's not really breaking the law in order to be a bad guy, it's just that, well, you know, a lot of times the law doesn't exactly match the actual situation and you have to ... kind of ... well, you know ... Leave no turn unstoned in the pursuit of ... Well, you know ... Skr

>realized that religion is bullshit Well, a lot of individuals certainly give religion a bad name. To me where it really gets off the track the most is where people try to force their beliefs on others. But as a response to the awareness of our existance it's pretty interesting. And you don't really have to take anything on faith, you can test it for yourself. For example the Buddhists formulate it as: there's a lot of suffering going on and here's its cause and here's a way out. Well, is it true or not? I guess we can all agree that there's a lot of suffering going on, but you don't have to take anybody's word that the eight fold path is a way out. You can try that path and see for yourself whether it works or not. I guess there's a practical difficulty in that this can take quite a few life times, but if you really want to know then maybe that's just an implementation detail :-) :-) -- On the Republican / Democrat problem it looks to me like both the religious fundamentalists and the corporatists have chosen the Republican party as their vehicle for worldly power. I wish there were a third party that stood more for what I think; I'm not very happy with the Democrats, but they're the most anti-Republican vote I have so that's the boxes I've been checking lately. Skr

>will the handle then fall off the harness? It will probably stay in place, but just to emphasize what some others have said: Think, and practice, that if you want your reserve you pull the handle. Remember: The software in your Cypres was written by Microsoft, and the RSL was manufactured by a lowest bid government contractor, so if you want your reserve, pull the handle. (Do I need to put a smiley after that? Naaah, nobody (would ... well, here's a couple just in case :-) :-) Skr

>I'm ready to scream!! I CAN NOT get the freakin thing in the bag! :-) :-) This is like some kind of rite of passage or something, but I agree with Sid, it really is just technique. But it's too hard to describe in writing; you need to find the right person or people to show you, and then practice it at home during the week. Some people say jump it at Eloy or otherwise get it dirty and dusty to wear the slippery off, but don't do that. All those dust particles are sharp little crystals and they age your canopy fast. It's better to keep it clean and make 50 or 100 jumps on it as soon as you can. It's partly using all your body parts to keep the thing surrounded and not let it squirt out like a watermelon seed. When I have a slippery one I use all 6 legs, thighs, knees, ankles, 11 or 12 arms, elbows, forearms, both chests and sometimes even 3 or 4 chins and it goes in pretty easy. It's just technique :-) :-) Skr

> A couple of days ago, I made the decision to retire from active jumping. Well ! That left me feeling thoughtful. I don't have such an abrupt end point in mind, but I can tell that my attention has been turning toward future vistas for a while now, like I'm becoming transparent at the drop zone. I don't think we ever met, but I've certainly been hearing about you for decades. So thanks. Maybe we're about to find out who we're going to be when we grow up :-) :-) Skr

>I believe this is a myth, because it is just too hard >for me to think that such an experienced sky diver like a >camera-man can make such a stupid mistake, and >without anyone noticing! I think this story tells us several things: 1 - People make mistakes. 2 - Skydiving is so intense that people are often so caught up in their own world that they don't notice even gross and blatant warning flags. I see this fairly regularly. It also tells us: 3 - Compassion for others' humanity is a good thing. 4 - Making regular efforts to upgrade our own awareness is a good thing. So far I have survived my stupid mistakes, but they could easily have gone the other way. Maybe it's better to be lucky than good :-) :-) Increasing awareness takes training and regular practice just like any skill. Mine goes up and down like a sine wave, but over time the average has gone up, often prodded by getting the crap scared out of me at one of the low spots. Skr

>looking for some sorta guide I called PD (Performance Designs) and asked them to send me a packing video. I don't think they even charged me for it. I told them I was going to make a few copies to circulate among the people I help towards their A license. I also watch other people pack and when I see a good technique I incorporate some form of it into my own procedures. Skr

>Second, I'd like the name and address of whoever >developed Zero P material. :-) :-) :-) Now *that's* funny ... Welcome to skydiving ... Skr

> Can you post a few numbers for different jump run ground speeds Down at the bottom of http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/index.html is an article called "Dealing with Uppers" that has some ground speed vs seconds numbers plus a discussion of where they came from. http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/sg_skr_dealing_1_uppers.html is the URL. Here's a table for common situations: |----------||-----------|-----------| | ground || | | | speed || 1000 ft | 1500 ft | | knots || | | |==========||===========|===========| | 90 knots || 6-7 sec | 10 sec | |----------||-----------|-----------| | 70 knots || 8-9 sec | 1-13 sec | |----------||-----------|-----------| | 50 knots || 11-12 sec| 17-18 sec| |----------||-----------|-----------| I talked to Bryan Burke at Lost Prairie and he said that at Eloy they no longer fly jumpruns at less than 60 knots ground speed. When the uppers get stronger than that they start flying various forms of cross wind jump runs. Skr

>so my question is where do you draw the line? In recent years, with lawsuits in mind, I draw a much stricter, by the book line, even when I'm sure it would be otherwise OK. One day I had a really sharp senior from the Air Force Academy who I had worked with before. He caught on to everything right away. Among other things he was a glider instructor with several thousand hours. The winds were a little over the student limit and I said no and told him why. Now he probably understood those winds better than I did but I didn't want to be sitting in court some day with some lawyer trying to show that I had a pattern of breaking the rules when what I was really doing was using my fucking judgement. (Yes, I do think this aspect of things sucks :-) :-) (but lawyers are a hazard the same way power lines (and buildings are. Another example: someone jumped a rig and while I was helping him repack it for another jump we noticed the seal had broken. Before this lawsuit era we would have just finished packing it and dealt with the seal at the end of the day. Maybe I've gone too far but what kind of pushed me over the edge was when some dickhead sued someone for not breaking up right on an 8 way, and won, in a Canadian court. In the A license phase I don't put much emphasis on the freefall stuff anyway. Probably 80% of my effort is in how to be a parachute jumper: canopy control, exit separation, gear maintenance etc. That's what they need most in their early jumps. Freefall is like the icing on the cake. I'm wondering whether other instructors have been affected in a similar way. Skr

I can't tell you much about the DZ itself (hot, windy, sagebrush, desert) but that's where Richard Economy showed me the idea of flying no contact (we called it "hovering") in 1964. I seem to remember the ASO's (Area Safety Officer = S&TA) name was Mickey something and I think that's the first place I heard the saying: "Don't pull lower than the ASO". It stemmed from a load where he grounded everybody lower than himself and gave everybody from himself on up a warning. There were lots of pictures of Lancaster jumping in Skydiver Magazine. I also heard the story of a Beech load (going from Van Nuys to Taft?) that snuck in behind and above the Lancaster Beech and went when they did, greatly surprising the guys on the Lancaster Beech as all these guys who weren't on the load started arriving. Skr

Hi Steve, >Checkoslavakia It was actually Yugoslavia in a town called Portoroz. We made a bunch of movies of sequential relative work at the Gulch in 1975. We showed them at the US nationals and also the world meet in Warendorf, Germany. Then BJ, Hod and I drove down to Portoroz to show them to the Russians, actually we wanted to turn on the whole Eastern Bloc, but we thought in terms of "the Russians" because if they went for it so would everybody else. We drove to the dropzone but not much was going on, so we found the hotel where the competitors were staying. We (3 long haired hippy looking dudes) walked up to the desk and BJ said we want a room right next to the Russian team. The clerk said basically no way. BJ is very persuasive so the clerk goes in back and out comes this very senior lady, authorized to handle weird stuff like us I guess. She also said no way, but when we went up to our room we were right next to the Russian team. >Russians who had thousands and thousands Yes, they were really good in the air. I had the most jumps of our group at 1,700+ and their least experienced guy had 4,200 if I remember correctly. We used an old AN-2 with various style and accuracy people getting out a 600 and 2,000 meters. The Russian pilot said we could only go to 3,000 meters. It was pretty quiet and restrained on the way up, but after the last style and accuracy person got out the whole atmosphere changed. One of the Russians went up and told the pilot 4,000 meters, and they started clowning around and climbing around outside the plane and stuff. They didn't do much relative work at home but they were really, really good. We built two facing wedges, let go and redocked, symbolizing the Apollo-Soyuz mission. I still have the piece of paper where we drew the plan and then all signed it. Skydiving brotherhood transcends nationality. I don't know whether they spoke any English but I had taken a couple years of Russian. I used to translate math papers as a graduate student. But scientific Russian isn't much use for day to day drop zone talk. But Hod is right, after downing an 8 ounce glass of straight vodka I seemed to remember words that I didn't even know :-) :-) It was quite a trip. Skr

>Are you a "goal oriented" skydiver? Only slightly. I once took the Meyers Briggs test which shed some light on this. For me goals can provide some direction for my logical mind, but they provide little moment to moment motivation for taking all the steps to get there. Skr

Well I read through this thread twice and it's hard to add to what people have already said. I'm not familiar with the canopies you are jumping, so they could be a factor, but a common problem is what people are looking at, or how they are looking, for clues about when and how to flare. >How can I make myself feel the canopy? Is a really good question. Down at the bottom of http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/index.html is an article called "Wings Level" which may help you feel your canopy. It's at http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/c_wings_level.html Skr Edited to add that I agree with GravityGirl above whose post appeared while I was typing this.

Others have mentioned things to do in the future so that you don't get into this situation again, but ... One of the things I don't like about skydiving is that you can do all the smart things you have learned so far and still find yourself in some situation with no good answers. I think you chose right. At 2,700 ft you have to pull pretty soon. That's not that high with today's slow opening canopies. At 2,000 ft you don't really have time to take your pilot chute out and wave it in his face and hope he gets the message. He hasn't been getting the message so far. Maybe you could dodge left or right for a couple seconds and pull your reserve and hope for a near miss. There are lots of ways to not get into this situation in the future, but once you're there there are no good answers, only things you can try and hope for the best. So I think that with only 60 jumps you handled it pretty well. Skr

>SO -- you would use the "front" canopy to steer. >Something i heard was to always use the dominant >(in some cases, larger) canopy which is typically >the main. Why use the front?? Remember that I've never had two out, so everything I'm saying is based on talking to some experienced people, seeing a few, and thinking ahead as much as I can. Also, if you live close to the crewdog who invited you to give it a try, think about trying it. Crewdogs appear to be a scruffy lot, with gear flaps open and risers hanging out and non standard attire and weird looking helmets and stuff, but (not to give away any trade secrets or anything) I think it is just part of the mystique, because when you show any interest they open right up and are nice people. So .. in a biplane I would steer with the front canopy. What would happen if I used the rear one? Would it become a side by side or ... ? "Dominant" doesn't have a clear meaning to me. In a biplane it seems like the front is dominant. For a side by side is it the biggest one? or the one with the most drive? or ... ? In a side by side I would start out trying the inside rear riser of both canopies. As a general principle, if I had a stable situation, biplane or side by side, I would mess with it as little as possible and try to get on the ground before something weird happens. >ON ANOTHER NOTE -- the thing about using a toggle >to cause a downplane makes the situation even "touchier". >So would you use a front riser? Rear? or anything to get >the canopies to separate? Good question. You just uncovered something I haven't thought ahead about. I guess both front and rear would work. I'll have to ask a few people and think about it. One thing that bugs me about using toggles is that, OK, maybe an experienced jumper can keep straight which risers are going to which canopy, but what about a student? They're already rattled just jumping out of the plane. What if they undo one toggle from each canopy? Now you've got two canopies doing what? Each going into line twists? And suppose they do manage to cut away the main. Now you've got a reserve with one toggle undone, doing what? Turning? Going into further line twists? Is even an experienced jumper going to figure all that out?? So I'm going to stick with leaving my toggles stowed until some credible people convince me otherwise. >*sorry if i'm misunderstanding things or getting >lines crossed* (ha! no pun intended) Right ... We've seen your type come through here before :-) :-) Good questions. Skr

>That's the same thing I was taught in my FJC 4 years ago. >IF it's a situation that your reserve fires after your main is >open and toggles unstowed, then you would steer with those >toggles. But if they're stowed, don't touch 'em. >Steer with the risers. Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong or maybe they are not saying what they really mean but in http://www.uspa.org/publications/SIM/2004SIM/Section4CatA.htm#1h it says: - for a biplane - "Steer the front canopy gently using toggles" - for side by side (alternative 2) - "Steer the dominant (larger) canopy gently using toggles" And in the pdf document at Performance Designs which these recommendations are based on it says the preferred method is to steer with the toggles of the dominant / larger / front canopy. Maybe they are just assuming that if all toggles are stowed people would just naturally leave them stowed and steer with the rear risers. But it sounds to me like they are saying to unstow the toggles and steer with them. ---- Every once in while in recent years I have a vision of me sitting in court trying to explain to a whuffo jury about something and finally losing it and cutting loose with "I don't care what the fucking BSRs say! In this situation it's a stupid idea!" That would at least renew my Crusty Old Curmudgeon rating. :-) :-) ---- Maybe the Safety and Training Committee could clarify this at the next BOD meeting. Skr

>http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/dualsq.pdf I've read this several times because it is the basis for USPA's recomendation of releasing the toggles on the front or dominant canopy and using them to steer with. But this dualsq.pdf never says why they think releasing the toggles makes the situation better. They just say it is the preferred way. ---- Here's something I posted in another thread a couple years ago: A few months ago I sat through the ground school part of an AFF certification course that Rick Horn gave here in Colorado, and I asked him about that. Unstowing the brakes with both out seemed like a really bad idea - you are taking a touchy situation and making it even more touchy. He said that shouldn't be in there, it was a mistaken copy and paste from some possible moves an experienced jumper might think about. (He also said the maximum performance turn one way and then the other on the A license proficiency card was another accidental copy and paste that shouldn't be there.) I've never had two canopies out, well not since the 60's when I was experimenting with things, but, after talking to a number of experienced people, seeing a few two outs, and thinking about it, if I ever have one I plan to: - If it's a biplane then steer really gently with the front canopy and try to get on the ground before anything weird happens (leave the brakes stowed and steer with the rear risers of the front canopy). - If it's a down plane then chop the main. - If it's a side by side then sweat bullets of indecision while I try some really gentle steering and see how it feels and then either land it or force a down plane and then chop the main or maybe something I haven't thought of yet. ---- Since then I have thought that if I had a side by side I would steer gently with the inside rear riser from each canopy. This would tend to keep the canopies together whereas using outside risers would tend towards a downplane. ---- Skr

>To get signed off on your A licence you are required >to have packed a parachute. To get the sign off are >you also required to jump your pack job as well? >Should you be required to? I don't remember that being specifically required, but I require it for anybody I sign off. Students are nervous about all kinds of stuff. It's easy to forget how overloaded people are in their first few jumps. Sometimes I feel nervous about stuff, so why shouldn't they? Sometimes you have to talk to them for a while to find out what they are actually nervous about. It's not always the first thing out of their mouths. Then we just work on it until they feel OK enough to try it, or maybe even just take a few steps towards it. I've taught a zillion people to pack and I've kind of burnt out on doing it from a standing start, so I made some copies of the PD packing tape and send them off to a class, and then I can help them when they have the general idea. Skr

Today the text is back to a readable off white. Sangiro daemons must have been busy during the night. Skr

The text in the upper nav bar was dark again last night, and still is today. It's the part of the nav bar that has Home | Forums | ... ... ... | Mail The little vertical "|" field separators are a darkish blue, but visible. I can still get around by looking at the URL that appears down in the bottom of the Mozilla window.

>> Perhaps the ability to enter your own sub-discipline >> as a text field? I wonder how long it would take for >> that to get abused, though. > > > Oh, maybe 5 or 6 seconds .. 10 at the outside. > > I'm already getting some ideas :-) :-) You know, I was just sitting here thinking that maybe I spoke too soon and with the wrong attitude. What is "abuse"? The general forum rules still apply and if someone misuses it that way it would be noticed soon enough. On the other hand the creativity and viewpoints expressed could be both amusing and informative. All those categories are just something that someone somewhere just made up. It's the bureaucratic mind trying to limit a freewheeling activity to a few dry statistics. Aarrrrrgghh .. Question Authority! Question Reality! (and so on :-) So now entering your own role in skydiving as a text field seems like a good idea again, and if someone finds a really offensive way to stay within the rules we will all learn something. Skr

> I'll bet you a jump it's under 5 Now there's a risky bet! I'll just buy you a jump next time I see you. Skr

Not sure whether this is religious or practical, but http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=74&e=3&u=/cmp/20040702/tc_cmp/22103407

> Perhaps the ability to enter your own sub-discipline > as a text field? I wonder how long it would take for > that to get abused, though. Oh, maybe 5 or 6 seconds .. 10 at the outside. I'm already getting some ideas :-) :-) Skr