winsor

all of those are single point observations. Put them together and you have a body of anecdotal evidence, which when combined with non-observational information can be used to draw conclusions. Drawing conclusions without the background data is alot like trying to guess someone’s height from a photograph lacking another reference point. Is the problem "real" or has the perception of the problem increased? (i'm not arguing either here, i'm trying to show you the questions that have yet to be answered) if HP canopies are now more easily available then they are being flown more, has the incident rate for HP canopies increased OUT OF PROPORTION to their increased use? got any observations to show that it has or has not? Hard to say with only single point observations.. think about it... if 10 HP canopies are being flown 1 injury is a significant percentage...if 10000 are flying 100 injuries is not.. without good data it is impossible to determine the scope of the issue I love it when people bandy statistics about like this. Okay, for a little background for who would appear to have missed the lead-up to the situation in which we now find ourselves. Zero-P and elliptical canopies became available around 1990, more or less. The Sabre became the gold standard, and for quite a while if someone botched a high-performance landing there were better than even odds that they did it under a Sabre. Hook turn/avoidance turn injuries have been with us since well before the zero-P/elliptical era, and I know too many people who broke backs or died under Delta Clouds or big Falcons. With the increase in wing loading possible with zero-P, hook turn injuries became more severe overall, and "femur" is now commonly used in the verb form. Seeking answers in statistics is a waste of time when a clear picture is available by inspection of the physics involved. With increased wing loading comes increased speed (in general). The net effect of this increase in speed is twofold - things happen faster and they do so with greater energy & momentum. The same error that will result in an ambulance ride under a Class 2 canopy will entail a trip to the morgue under a Class 5 canopy. I have a decent amount of experience, and am still impressed by how fast things happen when loading a cross-braced elliptical at 2 psf. You can talk statistics until you are blue in the face, but I have witnessed enough serious injuries that were a direct result of, or exacerbated by, high wingloading that I don't consider the point debatable. It's a stark reality. In aviation the key is to survive the first couple of hundred hours of flying time. In skydiving I won't go by numbers so much as time in grade. Since people can go to turbine dropzones and bang out as many jumps as they can afford, it's hard to distinguish between a thousand jumps and a hundred jumps ten times. If you lose a few friends, it is hard to tell the trends from the anomalies. If you stick around for a few decades, the patterns become pretty clear. You have a right to your opinions, but if you survive and stay on the scene, I have a hunch that your opinions will not be the same in a few years as they are now. In the meantime, I want to come up with tools to help more of us stay alive and in one piece. Blue skies, Winsor

Perhaps I am. OTOH, I do not aspire to be an instructor. That's a job, and I do not wish to make skydiving work. If I could just get a rating without a lot of fuss, I suppose I might. Unfortunately, the process is inconvenient as hell and a real pain in the ass. I'm not sure that the hazing involved in getting ratings serves to get the best and the brightest so much as those willing to endure the hazing for whatever reason. If an evaluator saw fit to participate in a couple of skydives I organized for low timers and treat them as evaluation dives, I might go for that. To try to get me to follow a standardized approach on the basis of someone else's agenda, on my time and with me footing the bill isn't likely to work. Blue skies, Winsor

Ron, The reason I let you jump a Blue Track with such little experience is because you had been doing CRW with Doug Wolf, who vouched for your attitude under canopy, and that you agreed to follow a very conservative flight plan. The Blue Track is not fast, but it is responsive as hell, and had a bad reputation for hitting the ground before the jumper in a panic turn. I kept a picture on my wall at work for years, showing Lake Wales with a canopy in the way - burying a toggle in level flight will put the canopy directly below you. Going from a Raven I to a twitchy elliptical takes some mental planning, and I wanted to be sure you understood that a low-level avoidance turn was potentially much worse than the collision itself. The problem with the regs you suggest is that they would disqualify me from giving the preflight briefing. I'm not an instructor or a coach or any of that. I've made thousands of jumps over the last thirty years, and Fluid Mechanics is my Mechanical Engineering field of expertise, but someone that knows no more than what is taught in the USPA syllabus and has met the minimum experience requirements would be able to teach what I could not. I don't charge to teach neophytes how to pack, and I organize low-timers just to give back to the sport. I'm already forbidden to jump with unlicensed jumpers without a mother-may-I from someone who might wish to charge to do so themselves. I fear that canopy regulations would serve to further cut people like me out of the loop. Even with the proliferation of first-class professional operations, I think that safety can best be promoted by means of community rather than bureaucracy. Don't assume that I'm too competent for you to give my gear a once-over. If you see something that might be misrouted, tell me! If I do something unsafe, don't be shy - point it out! I may not even realize that I cut someone off or whatever. I agree that letting safety sort itself out isn't working as well as I would like. Incidents like the one that started this thread are too common for my liking. I'm leery about rules in general, since they tend to take on a life of their own. I will give some thought to operational tools that we can all use to improve our collective safety - hopefully ones that are enough fun to be worthwhile - and put them forth for comment. Blue skies, Winsor

Let's see, these are the ones that come to mind offhand: Balloons, tethered (800') and free Beech 18 (Twin Beech), Twin Bonanza, Queen Air, King Air 90 & 200 Bell UH-1 and 412 Boeing Vertol CH-47 Boeing Stearman SNJ (? - "yellow peril") Boeing 727 Cessna 150/152, 172, 180, 185, 205/206/207 (including an Allison Turbine model), Caravan CASA 212 (?) DeHavilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou and DHC-6 Twin Otter Douglas DC-3/C-47 Lockheed C-130 and C-141 Helio Stallion Pilatus Porter Piper Cherokee, Navajo Chieftain Shorts Skyvan In general the turbines do better at higher altitudes, so 182s aren't ususally mainfested for loads into Class A airspace. Big radials tend to be toads above 10 grand as well, At 182 DZs people tend to know how to skydive. They can take off a chunk from an awkward exit, and are turning points on the hill. They don't have much altitude to waste, so they learn how to use it. They can't put together 16 ways that take six grand to build. Another nice thing about C-182s is that you're not competing for landing space with 23 other parachutists. It's a lot easier to keep track of three other parachutes, and it only takes one that you missed to kill you ('bye, Roger). I was just missed by someone flying a nonstandard pattern this Saturday (out of an Otter), and problems on short final I can do without. In general, fast is good. If you want to know what I'm talking about, get on some of Mike Mullins' loads - that man can get to altitude FAST, and flies a great jumprun. As far as exit goes, tailgates tend to be the most flexible and forgiving. Flexible and forgiving can lead to lax performance, and I doubt if you're going to see 8-ways build faster than the A-team out of Mullins's King Air, so it's all relative. Raft dives, tubes and what have you are better suited to tailgates, but that has little to do with high performance skydives. Also, doing big ways out of a C-130 is easier than a DC-3 from the standpoint of getting everyone out of the plane in short order. They're all good, and I'll jump just about anything but a Twin Bo or Queen Air again. The GSIO motors on those airplanes tend to fail (I've bailed out of two of them when engines crapped out), and they're most likely to do so in that window of opportunity after rotation where the pilot has no Plan B. My preferred method of suicide is old age, thank you very much. If you have a C-182 on hand, you're in good shape. You can develop all the skills you need to survive for a long time, and have a grand time doing so. Blue skies, Winsor

To some extent it depends on what I'm jumping and why I'm low. I practice finding handles on every jump, often in freefall, so I have the kinesthetics wired. Many years ago I couldn't find a handle (old style PUD) as quickly as I wanted, and was under reserve by 1,900 ft., with no cutaway pulled - straight to silver. On cllimbout I watch the altimeter unwind, and note the altitude at which I will go for the main instead of the reserve. It's not a matter of reliability as much as not wanting to find myself under a ground-hungry Class 5 canopy 450 feet over 100 foot pine trees, with power lines to one side and a construction site to the other. I've twice left an airplane that had an engine go massively inop on climbout, and it was only the luck of the draw the we had plenty of altitude (and an interesting spot) each time. If I am low because I'm brainlocking, I assume I will be on a roll and simply go for the main as usual. I would have to be in heads-up mode to go for the open-NOW canopy. A complex decision tree is ill advised for safety-related issues, and switching gears reactively from main to reserve mode can eat up as much altitude as can a pretty good snivel (I don't jump anything that takes 1,000 feet to open - or opens in less than 100 ft., for that matter). I've only had ground rush in freefall a couple of times (outside of BASE), and even then used the main. I really don't have a game plan that involves intentionally pulling low, so finding myself in the basement is likely to be an unplanned event, and the only policy I would apply to the situation is the old standby - don't go in with any handles unpulled (or keep pulling handles 'til your goggles fill with blood, as the case may be). Blue skies, Winsor

Whenever I'm organizing, I stress gear checks. When I read this post, it occurred to me that this practice was, in fact, drilled into me in Jump School. I've caught the usual misrouted chest strap, twisted main lift web, folded under handle, stuffed hackey, and dangling RSLs, as well as spotting a leg strap that had been ground almost through on the previous landing, sliding on asphalt. I also suggest one final check before exit, since I've seen and had an incipient horseshoe that had developed on the ride to altitude but got caught before climbout. There are people who died or were maimed from things that would have been caught by a cursory last minute check before exit, and I figure due diligence is in order. You can only make it so safe, agreed, but building in a system of routine checks can minimize the occurence of easily avoidable risks. I already have enough NSTIWTIWGTD stories, thank you very much. Blue skies, Winsor

In 1971 I was 17 years old, so the Army was the best deal in town. Not only was I allowed to jump, I was paid to do so. It was a rush then, and it's a rush now. I didn't go through Benning, however. I went through the course in Wiesbaden, Germany, and didn't make a jump in the US of A until 1978. All the way, Winsor

I have a real problem with the idea of "tolerance," not to mention judgemental attitudes. You don't tolerate something you find acceptable - you accept it. It is only when something is fundamentally unacceptable that one condescends to "tolerate" it. I find the sanctimonious nature of "tolerance" abhorrent, and I would rather leave my options to acceptable or unacceptable. You can have tolerable. I have had self-proclaimed religious people presume to pass judgement on me enough that I'm unimpressed with the whole thing. Much of what is passed off as holy strikes me as pretentious, if not downright preposterous. I don't drink, am asleep before the wet tee shirt contests (golly, breasts!) but have been know to utter the odd epithet if the occasion warrants. The Amish people who come out to DZs and have picnics are to my liking. They are pleasant and friendly, and don't foist their way of life on those outside their community. What people do behind closed doors is their business. If someone comes selling paradise insurance for when I bounce, they can keep their honeyed figs and I've had my share of virgins thank you very much. Blue skies, Winsor

It's been done. If you somehow expect to come across someone at a boogie that has is as yet unaware of religion, you're going to be sorely disappointed. If you want to keep it low key, cool. If you choose to be offensive and proselytize, you are cordially invited to rethink that decision. I won't stand up in a service and expound on the virtues of skydiving, so please don't stand up at a DZ and expound on the virtues of your particular True Way. If someone wants to go to church, I'm sure they could find one without looking too hard. Some of the people who don't go to church value being spared the experience. Blue skies, Winsor

I guess I do have a rig or two where the main is the bigger of the two. One has a Raven IV main and Raven III reserve. Another rig has matched 215 sq. ft. 7 cells - an Astrobe main and an Orion reserve. Generally I have the biggest reserve I can get my hands on. My EXTreme FX 99 is paired with a Raven 2 (218 sq. ft.). If I get kicked in the collarbone or otherwise have a hard time using both hands to flare, I want to be able to get as much nylon overhead as possible. Then again, that's just me. I've been hurt and didn't like it. Blue skies, Winsor

FWIW, to really get into the issues you raised would take the better part of a semester. Weight is the force on a object due to gravitational attraction. The short form is: W = mg though both weight and g are vector quantities and m, mass, is a scalar multiplier. The magnitude of g is a function of altitude, but we treat it as constant for the sake of simplicity. L/D is your lift to drag ratio. It is treated as a constant for a particular parachute, though it isn't really. Surface area is one factor in drag, and it isn't all that simple. We lump relevant factors together in ballistics and come up with a coefficient which relates speed to drag in a given flow regime (here we're talking way subsonic). The two objects dropped hit the ground at the same time only if they have the same ballistic coefficient and/or are dropped in a vacuum. All that says is that the magnitude of g (see above) is the same for both. In any event, I wouldn't ponder too greatly on these issues from a theoretical standpoint, unless you feel like undergoing a rigorous treatment of the subject. If you do, prepare to unlearn an awful lot. Blue skies, Winsor

Jumping into Italy, a guy named Washington failed to properly secure the lowering line on his rucksack. It draped over the end of a bench seat next to the door on the C-130, and he was being thumped against the fuselage as the next couple of guys went. The jumpmaster stuck his head out and saw Washington being dragged, so, thinking fast, he began to pull the unfortunate trooper back in. Unfortunately, he tried to do so by means of the static line. Miraculously, nobody was injured when the bench seat was ripped loose and dragged out the door. For what it's worth, the bulk of guys with whom I served would be rejected for enlistment these days. The average IQ was like room temperature, and these kind of bonehead incidents were the norm. Blue skies, Winsor

Of course it is! If your car has bald tires, bad brakes and you are taking it down the mountain on a road without guard rails to get more whiskey since you used all you had left to wash down a Quaalude, driving is much more dangerous. OTOH, skydiving is an activity which involves committing suicide repeatedly, and changing your mind at the last moment each time. You'd have to be a pretty lousy driver to have the same risk of horrific injury or death that is an unfortunate part of skydiving. I know a lot of people who drive all the time, but have lost way more friends to the sport than on the road. Like it or not, that's the way it is, and denial is a poor survival mechanism. Blue skies, Winsor

Keep in mind I am very new to this sport. The ink is still wet on my A-license. My thinking behind it is if, for whatever reason ( I know it should never happen) my hand slipped from my reserve handle, below 1000 ft I may not not have time to grab the handle again and deploy in time to land safely. I would think even a few hundred feet may make a difference. If I were below 1000 ft. I would do as I have seen recommended on these forums and deploy my reserve to get as much fabric over my head as possible then cutaway. Makes sense to me, anyway. If I am wrong let me know. I know there is a lot of difference in opinion even among experienced skydivers, and I like to hear all sides. I yank both simultaneously at a minimum, but by all means get rid of a spinning main. A personal downplane isn't just a possibility, it's a likelihood. Blue skies, Winsor

I'm a rigger. My gear is always in date. Blue skies, Winsor

I was on The Jet at Quincy in '95 or so when a student was finishing AFF on his second jump. He was a tunnel rat with many, many hours of tunnel time, and the transition to skydiving was almost an afterthought. He seemed to think that the airplane and parachute parts of the deal were novel and fun. His attitude was that if you've seen one column of air, you've seen them all. His instructor expressed awe at this kid's abilities in freefall, even though it had only been one jump so far. They may have been pulling my leg, but it was all said with a straight face and someone else on the load affirmed that it was strange but true. I don't have any particulars beyond the conversation on the way to altitude, which was interrupted by the student and his instructor going over the dive plan, so you can take it with a grain of salt. Blue skies, Winsor

Try this:http://dogyks.home.netcom.com/jumprun/jmprun~1.htm Blue skies, Winsor

When in whuffo mode I mostly shoot guns - skeet, trap, clays, and bullseye. For heavy caliber stuff (.45/70 pistol, .460 Weatherby, .50 BMG)I like to shoot things that justify the insane amounts of energy and achieve spectacular results. I handload for over 36 metallic calibers and 6 shotgun bores. Fishing I do by strapping on tanks, grabbing a speargun and getting the little bastards where they live. Screw drowning bait. Riding around on motorcycles (Wide Glide Shovelhead) and flying airplanes is for transportation rather than recreation. Bicycles, unicycles and rollerblades are mostly for transport, but riding horses is more for recreation. Skiing, water skiing, sailing and the like are fun. It's all a matter of availability. I also go through a couple of books a week. Left to my own devices, I'd rather skydive. Peace, Winsor

Anybody who wants to jump a PC is welcome to jump one of mine. I have a couple of PC-class canopies in Wonderhogs, with BOC throwouts and LoPo reserves. I have them on hand at Load Organizer Tent 3 (or whichever one they assign us) at the Convention. Blue skies, Winsor

Bernoulli's equation is one of conservation of energy along a streamline. It states that the amount of energy in a fluid - pressureXvolume potential, kinetic, and massXheight potential - stays constant, end of story. Most of the popular treatments of the subject ("Fizix Made Easy!") are classic cases of the blind leading the blind. The scientist did not prove that a bumblebee can't fly - a bumblebee proved that the scientist's model needed further development. Belief has no place in scientific investigation, and physics is not amenable to solution by quorum. The questions you asked were fundamentally flawed. Oh, and knowledge may not set you free, but ignorance can kill you deader than hell. Blue skies, Winsor

Until you have a horseshoe, in which case the difference can be that of life or death. If you have a closing loop failure or dislodged pin with a throwout, you have a horseshoe - and you have the rest of your life to clear it. With a pullout, you have a higher than usual opening. I jump pullouts preferentially, to include jumping camera with huge wings and with ellipticals that are sensitive to body position on opening. YMMV. Blue skies, Winsor

when you accelerate towards the earthe your acceleration will be substracted from G and when you descelerate it will be added. so you will weight less when you accelerate and more when you slow down. stan. Okay, from an F=ma standpoint I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure what is the point of the exercise. If you are referring to the acceleration due to drag you experience in different flight regimes, you could rephrase it in normalized terms. For instance, you could say that stable freefall is one G, that your drag dropped to say 1/2 G when transitioning to a standup (and you accelerated downward at 1/2 G), or that the net lift component your drag and flight went to 3.5 Gs in the flare (so you accelerated upward at 2.5 Gs). Again, I'm not sure what is the particular significance of any of this, but it is only useful if the data relate to some coherent basis. Blue skies, Winsor

mmmm How did you manage to do that? The bug was flying at the perfect height at right angles to my direction of travel, coming from the left. I was going just slow enough and it was going just fast enough to clear the forks, tank and what have you and be in the way of my crotch. I saw it coming (BIG bug) in my peripheral vision, and wasn't able to do much about it before it happened. The pain was exquisite. Blue skies, Winsor

If he's the guy with 500 jumps in 24 hours, I certainly haven't outdone him yet. Blue skies, Winsor

I hit what I think was a duck at some 5,000 feet in an airplane. The windscreen on a Dash-8 is just about indestructible, but there was a LARGE splat mark, with a goodly portion of giblets smeared away from the point of impact. We had a Canada goose (might have been a Barent's - I can't tell them apart easily) that penetrated the leading edge of the wing and stuck in the spar, which is a really impressive amount of damage to sustain from airborne poultry. The closest I've come to a bird while skydiving was well over 1,000 feet under canopy. I nearly had a wrap with what looked like an golden eagle (it could have been a big mother hawk); we saw each other at about the same time, and it did some very startled-looking evasive maneuvers. All things being considered, I'm glad that most birds and bugs occupy lower altitudes. Having had a June bug hit a testicle while riding a motorcycle at 50 mph (I damned near crashed), I shudder to think of freefalling through a seagull at 120 mph. Blue skies, Winsor