winsor

Supplementary comment: If Tim was merely hoist with his own petard, that would be a simple tragedy. Unfortunately, he chose a means of inadvertent suicide that meant pissing in the soup for everyone involved, in both an immediate and a long term basis. The fact that his family has seen fit to use his demise as an excuse to engage in truly despicable actions is just icing on the cake. Personally I would just as soon he had been arrested and the video used to ensure he drew jail time. Thus, he would still be alive and hopefully convince nobody else to engage in such behavior. BSBD, Winsor

Granted, if Tim had not been standing there, it would not have happened Unless you have FACTS that can be substantiated please refrain from posting Fact: That was a designated aircraft operation area. Fact: Tim was there. Fact: Tim had no right to be there whatsoever. Fact: Tim died. QED Xin loi, Winsor

Agreed. Not only that, but I'm shocked at who it came from. I've never seen such an exhibition of bad taste. Bad taste is defined by the actions of the litigants against Rod, and I can't bring myself to buy into the sympathy angle used to make their case. Some years back a friend of mine was killed by being in a flight operation area without prior coordination with the pilot. The bottom line was that he fucked up and died, and the pilot and the mother of the deceased hugged each other in tears at the funeral. There was no blamestorming or litigation. In this case it is every bit as clear that it was a case of death by misadventure, where the deceased was in an area devoted to aircraft operations and died as a result. It's a shame and all that, but the bottom line is that he had no business whatsoever being where he was when he was struck. By the time I was done searching for his arm (we never did find it - most likely a coyote made off with it) I didn't have much sympathy for his misfortune, and seeing what it did to the staff of the helicopter operation did away with my last vestiges of concern. If the posts by his brother in law shortly thereafter had demonstrated acceptance of the full responsibility he took by going where he was forbidden by law to go (check the regs), I might have felt a modicum of sympathy. There was, however, a public exercise of denial of the first order, and I am not okay with that. That it has come to the point of civil action is nothing short of evil, and defense of the decision to litigate in this case is as repugnant as would be someone trying to explain why they think rape is really not so bad. Anyone who thinks that any good can come of the suit is misinformed. No "truth" will come out as a result, and only further destruction can ensue. The result of Tim's actions was unintended but predictable; the civil action being pursued now is purely mercenary and without any saving graces. If his memory is to be honored, it should not by by engaging in despicable actions in his name and thus befouling it. BSBD, Winsor

Good. I hope you are all in favor of Tim's estate and family accepting full responsibility for his actions. Tim did not have to live with the repercussions of his lapse in judgement, but Rod and the rest of the skydiving community did. I hope Tim's estate are prepared to compensate Rod for the economic hardship that Tim's ill-considered actions have caused. I am not sure how you can make up for Tim causing the removal of the 412 from the lineup at the Convention. Money won't do it. Given the choice of having the 412 or Tim back, my vote goes for the 412. I have less than zero sympathy for you or anyone associated with Tim, and am appalled that any of you should have the temerity to initiate litigation. It is singularly galling to have you suggest that Rod was at fault. Tim's actions were about as bright and defensible as standing on the track at a NASCAR race to get a better shot, and the only consolation is that he didn't get anyone else killed in the process. If you can't accept the responsibility that Tim took upon himself by his fatal misadventure, you would be well advised to engage in another hobby. BSBD, Winsor

You and I have both been on a lot of big ways with a pull out from the center - you on many more than me. If you think it's dangerous, why do you do it? Big ways are dangerous to begin with. Since you're gambling that nobody will do anything catastrophic in the first place, it seems natural to bet the ranch. I was on a 3-point 118 way (or something like that - it was one of many similar jumps) wherein someone wound up on top of the person who was supposed to initiate breakoff, right as we reached breakoff altitude. Nobody was very happy about it, but people were heads-up enough to begin breakoff as planned. I was in the second ring, and had clear air at opening altitude. Big ways are a different animal. Your basic skydive is a nontrivial experience, and specialty jumps are just that much moreso. There really isn't much in the way of Plan-B. When I organize smaller groups, I sure as hell don't do so by the same rules as apply to blots. I don't think it's appropriate. Blue skies, Winsor

It was tried a few years back, unsuccessfully. The chuteless pilot of a doomed airplane tried to do a Mr. Bill with one of the jumpers, but opening shock was a little too brisk for them to hold on to each other. Judging by people's experience with intentional Mr. Bills, it is possible to pull it off. If I'm jumping one of my more oversized canopies, packed for a soft opening, I'm pretty sure someone that didn't weigh too much could become one with my harness and still be there by the time I cleared my brakes. If I was jumping one of my 99s, I think our only chance would be to go to (200+ sq. ft.) reserve). Any way you cut it there's a good chance that one or both of us would require medical attention after arrival back on terra firma, but it beats the hell out of a trip to the morgue. Aiming for a nearby body of water might limit the damage to that incurred upon opening (torn rotator cuffs or ligaments and what have you), but landing in a handy pile of hay might reduce the likelihood of drowning. Thus, the short answer to "could it be done safely?" is no. Can it be survived? Maybe, sort of. It's worth a shot. Blue skies, Winsor

The number of permutations for pulling ALL handles is n!, so you have 5! = 120 & 6! = 720. If you stop after pulling a limited number of handles, the number becomes 145 for a five handle system and 1116 for a six handle system (assuming I used Excel correctly). The number of sequences that will result in a clean deployment is not so simple to generate. The function of the new handle and its effect on the various deployment modes would have to be considered in generating the list of surviveable sequences. I don't know enough about tandem gear to speculate. Any way you cut it, it isn't just another skydive. Blue skies, Winsor

If you see a dark canopy flying in proximity near the ground, it's likely your shadow from the moon. When it's dark you tend to pick out contrasting shapes and objects in motion, and your shadow can produce an interesting optical illusion. Pay attention to the spot. Know where you are when you get out - don't simply step out with the green light. In general it's a good idea to get used to the lay of the land on the way up. I have a couple of thousand hours of night flying, so I have a lot of practice trying to pick out viable outs in the dark. It helps to consider what could hang you up if you have a bad spot at night while looking at the ground during the day. This is to say, pick out obstacles such as power lines and such when you can see them, and figure out what visual cues you would use to avoid them if you had to exit over that area at night. Get on the same page with the people who are on the load with you. Agree to a flight pattern, and to avoid spiraling and so forth - clearing wraps is exciting enough when you can see what the hell you're doing. Keep it simple, since it's not just another skydive. Plan the dive, and dive the plan. Stay heads-up, but remember to smile and have fun. Blue skies, Winsor

For students an FXC 12000 is cheap and, by and large, better than nothing. When the FXC was the only game in town, you would not see an experienced skydiver use one in anything but the most unusual circumstances. Their level of technological sophistication is abysmal, and they can open anywhere between breakoff and impact according to their whim. The Astra, made by FXC, is but an electronic realization of the mechanical kludge that is the 12000. It is the gold standard for "artificial stupidity." The CYPRES is the first of the modern AADs. After over a decade it appears there is some competition; until now the CYPRES was the sole occupant of its niche. The CYPRES is in another league w.r.t. operational reliability, and is much more expensive. Where people might question the sanity of an up jumper using anything made by FXC, going without a CYPRES is considered bad planning in much of the skydiving community these days. If you're going to open HIGH, an FXC is okay, I suppose. Just be well versed in your procedures for an inadvertent deployment of the reserve and you should be fine. Blue skies, Winsor

I like to have a reserve about double the size of my main, and just stay the hell out of the basement. I chopped my 99 main and was under a 218 reserve above 2 grand this summer. I don't size my equipment on the basis of personal CRW. Blue skies, Winsor

It's been done. Now we're just trying to work out the details of surviving the experience. Blue skies, Winsor

IIRC, that should be the square of the velocity. Blue skies, Winsor

Elliptical X-braced Tri-cell (reme) - I'm not sure of the FX vs. VX part of the nomenclature. I agree that the term is hackneyed. I can see its limited use when applied to near-death-experiences where one is really working without a net, but the idea of extreme checkers or extreme typing or something is a bit much. It's kind of like "sporty" cars with fake hood scoops and brake vents - much of the reality fails to live up to the promise. "Extreme" is strictly from Madison Avenue, which is not at all what this sport is about in the main. Blue skies, Winsor

I have three CYPRES-equipped rigs. I also have maybe a dozen that are AAD-free (though many of those are CYPRES-ready). The two I took to the DZ yesterday were of the manual variety. I am somewhat indifferent as to whether the rig I'm using has an AAD. If it has one, I turn it on. In any case I consider it a good idea to keep pulling handles until something landable is overhead, and to do so with sufficient altitude to have a good chance of success. It is typically better to forget to turn it on and leave it off than to remember on the ride to altitude and turn it on then. I once remembered to turn on my CYPRES as we climbed through 3,000 feet, then thought "wait a minute!" and turned it back off again. Someone who did so but left it on had a reserve ride out of a formation, so I'm glad I rethought the matter. Blue skies, Winsor

Slugs. Do them up with butter and garlic, put them in a snail shell and voila! L'escargot! Blue skies, Winsor

My reserve to main transition altitude is a function of canopy in use and venue. If I'm jumping one of my EXTreme FX 99s in Lebanon, ME, where outs = big trees, I might not go to main below 3 grand unless I was sure I was over the DZ. If I'm jumping one of my Raven IVs at Perris, I might use the main at 1,200 feet. I'll be under canopy above a grand and I can sink it in just about anywhere. The decision altitude should be part of your preflight. Blue skies, Winsor

I think it would be best not to try to cut a line over in a spinning reserve, scares me more the idea of cutting a wrong reserve line than going down to the floor with a spinning reserve. Maybe somebody with more experience can tell me more about this. Since the offending line is almost always a steering line, simply cutting the steering line on trashed side will likely address the problem. If you had to figure out which suspension line it was, you probably couldn't do so before the ground intervened. Blue skies, Winsor

Even though I carry multiple hook knives as a matter of course, I don't view it as a panacea. I have cleared a lineover (on a main) by briskly hauling down on risers on the offending side, which caused the line to pop free. Since reserves tend to be low aspect ratio 7 cells, they are not subject to the wild spinning you might find on a hot elliptical, but it is still a good idea to stay the hell away from the brakes as long as possible. Clearing the brakes tends to exacerbate any tendency to turn that results from the lineover - on a high performance canopy this can mean going from a mild turn to spinning violently on your back. If you are going to use your hook knife, your best bet is to cut the steering line on the fouled side. The steering line accounts for almost all lineovers. I would recommend leaving the other side alone and steering with risers. Whatever you do, it is best to do it FAST. You are under your reserve, remember? Thus, you are likely a lot lower than opening under your main, and your glide ratio under a lineover is going to be less than normal (for the reserve). This is a tough bit of advice, but whatever you do - LOOK AROUND! If you fail to maintain an adequate scan such that you fixate on one aspect of your situation, you may have success with clearing the mal only to find that you've backed yourself into a fatal corner. Whenever I chop, I make damned sure I have enough air under me for the reserve to have a chance to open. One last, fast scan won't waste but a second, and may well save your life. Be advised that in this sport, indecision has the capacity to be fatal. Blue skies, Winsor

Tom Piras was an outstanding skydiver too, gold medalist, world record holder... Yeah, and he was one of the few people jumping a CYPRES-equipped rig at the time. Two great quotes came from that jump: "It's only a four-way" (as he turned it off after he demonstrated turning it on). "Maybe I should have left it on" (on the way to altitude). Blue skies, Winsor

I recommend a minimum of two knives on every rig (okay, so I only have one knife on my round rigs), with one mounted high and one low. A Zak knife (cheap orange plastic) is better than nothing, but not much. Aluminum knives are a good standard, and Jack the Ripper types work well. Be advised that the Jack the Ripper types are difficult to unsheathe quickly unless the sheath is sewn in place to a jumpsuit or something - removing it quickly from an unsupported sheath is a two-handed operation, and should be practiced before attempting it under duress. The nice thing about the Jack the Ripper knife is that it will cut through ANY line or webbing on the rig - fast. The down side is that if you're not paying attention, you can slice through the wrong risers or whatever without trying real hard. Keep some kind of folding knife on hand for general utility and dedicate the hook knife to emergency duty. Microline will dull a sharp blade so fast you wouldn't believe it, and you definitely want a virgin blade to get you out of a jam. Don't sharpen the blade. If it's suspect, replace the blade or the whole knife. A couple of low-timers were talking on the way to altitude about doing CRW after opening, and I asked if they both had hook knives. I gave my extra one to the guy who didn't have one. He returned it after landing, and made the investment. I can personally attest that it's better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it, because you tend to need it rather badly when you do. Blue skies, Winsor

Flip Wilson used to advertise for Sea and Ski, which was seen as a joke at the time (he was a comedian and all). It turns out that he had gone to Jamaica and figured that he was pre-tanned, and therefore immune to the sun. Wrong. While he was hospitalized for sun poisoning (severe burns resulting in histamine overload), the attending physician recommended that he use a good sunscreen. At the time, Sea and Ski was about the best one could find over the counter and he really used the stuff. A friend in High School (not of European ethnicity FWIW) made the observation that has stuck with me ever since - there are only two kinds of people, US and THEM. Quite who is who depends on who is present and what is under discussion (football vs. baseball fans, men vs. women, Liberals vs. Conservatives, Ibo vs. Yoruba, etc.). While in the Army, I once watched the line of demarcation switch half a dozen times over the course of an hour with pretty much the same group present. Groupings were almost random as the issue was Airborne/Leg, Infantry/Armor, Urban/Rural, Yankee/Southern, Homeboy/Honkey, Short-timer/Lifer and so forth. I'm leery of people who put too much stock in one form of catagorization or another. I'm a little more comfortable with people who are slightly indifferent to cultural differences than those who are overly "sensitive." In the skydiving world I should hope that concerns are more here-and-now than generic. I have been on skydives with any combination of gay/straight, Islamic/Christian/Buddhist/Wiccan/Atheist/Other, Narc/Dealer, Democrat/Socialist/Republican/Green/Libertarian and goodness only knows what combination of ethnicity. As long as someone has a good attitude, I'll jump with them. Blue skies, Winsor

For whatever reason, most of the people who gravitate to the sport seem to be males of European extraction. I could speculate as to why, but it wouldn't be all that informed a guess. The most significant line of demarcation appears to be sex. An attractive, single female is likely to be given more consideration than is a male who is not a World Champion. There is a pretty significant gay element, both male and female, but I don't see anyone making a big deal about it. By and large the gay members of the community don't make an issue of their preferences, and they are judged on the basis of their skills and contribution to the community. As far as race goes, it doesn't seem to be much of a factor on the DZ. If someone is being discussed, it is often more of concern if they're a CRW dog or a freeflier than what is their ethnicity. You don't have cliques based on off-DZ concerns so much as by skydiving discipline. The bottom line is that it really doesn't make much difference if your forebears were Iroquois, Indonesian, Ibo or Irish. It does make a difference if you're a good-looking woman. Blue skies, Winsor

Definitions vary, but hooking can mean failing to complete a hard turn before arrival. The best way to back yourself into a corner such that you impact under a perfectly good canopy usually inolves burying a toggle when too low to recover. If you're interested in high-performance landings, a front-riser turn may allow you to bail if you realize that completing the turn is not possible. By letting go of the riser your turn flattens out, and you can maybe dig yourself out of the corner with brakes. You still have the potential to come to grief with a front-riser turn, but at least there's a Plan B with which to work. Again defining a hook as a turn wherein the planet gets in the way, survival is a function of angle of incidence, speed and the material against which you decelerate. If you're going 80 miles an hour vertically when you hit, you really need to have something like a 30 foot high pile of foam pillows in front of you to have much of a chance. If you can bring it up to about a 30 degree angle at highway speeds, I've seen people get away with not much more than a smashed femur or two. With a butt strike you stand the chance of a crunched pelvis and some smooshed lower lumbar vertebrae and/or blown disks (just for starts). Even if you can level it out, remember to keep flying. People have snapped their necks with the rude face-plant that comes with letting go of the toggles at speed. Being a quadraplegic is not my idea of a good time. Sure, any rigger worth his (her) salt can modify a sail slider to either a kill-line or velcro-wrap collapsible in short order. It's useful to have mini-risers and big enough grommets to get past the links and toggles, since getting the slider out of the breeze helps greatly, whether you collapse it or not. Blue skies, Winsor

Dude, I many not be a physics teacher but I have a 4 year degree so don't try to insult my intelligence with your passive aggresive replies. All your accomplishing is making yourself look like an ass. If you want to talk, then talk like a man, don't act better than thou. It's not an act. As Dizzy Dean said, "it ain't bragging if you can do it." If you want either my credentials or peer review of my contentions, you are welcome to discover how far out of you league you are. A four year degree is all well and good, but you could have a Ph.D. from one school and not qualify to enter another as a Freshman. All schools are not created equal. Actually, I'm not. Most of the policies and procedures used by SF and other elite groups are, indeed, spot on. Others are not so rigorous, and usually these are in matters about which you can't do much. For example, I heard one of the most ill-informed treatises on interior, exterior and terminal ballistics that I've ever endured from an SF "expert," but the bottom line is that operationally he has to bet the ranch on the performance of some variant of the 5.56x45 cartridge, so it's better to believe than to doubt. Did you even bother to look at the power point presentations? The excel spread sheet I posted is part of a bigger equation. However,civillian skydivers don't calc winds so the only thing one can do to try and be as safe as possible is to use a method safer than the 45 degree method or the 4 sec method. If you have a better way of ensuring seperation then put your money where your mouth is and show the rest of us "ignorant" people. Up until this point all you've done is waste bandwidth. If you read the notes to my spotting and separation seminar closely, you'll see why I shy away from any formula that says "do this and you're fine." If you want an instant improvement in your methodology, simply replace groundspeed with airspeed in all of your calculations of horizontal separation. Groundspeed is related only by coincidence. You see, thats where your wrong. Becasue I don't have to defend the methodology, because what you think is not relevant to what I do. The physical model I use works in real life as I stated. We don't have this seperation issue in military skydiving. Can you explain that? Of course I can explain it. There is enough room for error (800 vs. 900 feet, both are "plenty" or "not enough" as the case may be) that using your rule of thumb is better than nothing. If you were working with a system where you had to be on to even two digits of accuracy, you would be screwed. Edited for personal attacks. Discussing exit separation is fine; discussing how pompous/stupid/inferior someone else is is not, whether or not you believe it to be true. Blue skies, Winsor

If you want to LAND 1000 feet apart, this is fine. It has nothing to do with how far apart you are IN THE AIR, which is the frame of reference of interest when we discuss "horizontal separation." Once you select the wrong frame of reference for your analysis, any further effort is wasted. As Bill pointed out, the critical frame of reference is the speed of the aircraft with regard to the airmass at opening altitude. The next most relevant frame of reference is true airspeed. The least useful datum is groundspeed, so long as we're talking about horizontal separation IN THE AIR. What the ground is doing is, in and of itself, immaterial to the behavior of objects in the air above it. Q: If you have a layer of fog up to 2,500 feet and there is a 20 kt breeze on the ground, can you tell which way the wind is blowing by the behavior of groups in freefall above? A: No, the ground winds and ground speed are entirely immaterial, and have no effect whatsoever on the path of bodies THROUGH THE AIR. Blue skies, Winsor