relyon

My priorities are: Make sure the person under reserve is OK and someone lands with them. Follow the gear. I'll catch a freebag if there's altitude and airspace; I won't touch a main in the air if I don't already have it when it's chopped. I'll follow stuff most anywhere that doesn't put me in significant risk. Always land together when landing out if at all possible.I've followed freefallers under reserve and spotted and/or retrieved gear on a couple of occasions. Without exception they've been pleasantly surprised to find out someone was looking out for them when they expected to be on their own. Bob

I've not had control line problems, but wouldn't think twice about landing without brakes as I've done numerous rear riser only landings. I've landed a broken outside B-line (wrap victim) and couldn't tell it was missing. There were two instances of broken A lines during the CF world record (one on exit during the first 64-way - he made his slot), and both were landed stand-up without problems. I spoke to the jumpers involved and the main thing they did was make sure they had plenty of speed on final and a smooth flare. The bottom line for me is controllability. If it flies reasonably well (admittedly subjective) and flares ok up high I'll keep it; otherwise it's gone. Bob

Except for 50 or so jumps on student/rental gear and less than a half dozen on borrowed gear, I've never jumped an AAD. I couldn't afford one when I got my first rig and by the time I'd saved up the cash I was into CRW, so I spent it on a new Lightning instead. These days I jump exclusively CRW and my gear is not freefall compatible (Lightning main with a tail pocket and mesh slider), so every jump is a hop and pop. I have no concern for forgetting to pull, but getting knocked out on exit (or in an entaglement/wrap) is a possibility. To lessen the risk I wear a helmet on every jump and avoid low tail multis like the plague. I've made a conscious decision against using an AAD on CRW jumps and have reevaluated that decision several times. At present I still feel better without an AAD than with one. I do think they are a good piece of equipment and would use one if I did any amount freefall. Bob

Mike, No, it's not... Peace. Bob

Mike, Then you choose not to, and after this reply I'll not waste my time further trying to convince you otherwise. The phrase "... stay as far away from the CRW dogs as possible ..." applies to me, you, and every other CRWdog. I and many of my CRW buds take offense to that and a lot of the rest of his message. You're aware of it, so much so that you e-mailed the crwdogs list a conciliatory message to patch things up. Then he is incorrectly assuming CRWdogs don't consider that risk and has a really poor way of expressing himself if that's the best he can come up with. I'm guessing Scott doesn't use quite those same words or tone in his canopy course, but perhaps I'm wrong. What percentage is "some"? Who does "them" refer to? Without stating either the phrase most certainly does apply all CRWdogs. Ok. Stressing even harder those things we already do, and using this and other incidents as example of what to do and not do. Here's a few items that come to mind: Realize that landing out is more likely to happen on CRW jumps. Be more concerned about getting to the ground safely than getting back to the dropzone. Choose a good landing site early as opposed to being forced to a poor one when there's no altitude or options. DO NOT MAKE RADICAL LOW TURNS!These apply to any jumper, any canopy, and any wingloading. Many non-CRW jumpers are either not used to off-DZ landings or think it won't happen to them. I'm not talking about landing a hundred yards away in the desert at some place like Perris. I'm referring to everything from city streets, baseball fields, backyards, McDonald's parking lots (hi Wendy!), and forests. At Kapowsin, if you don't land on the DZ or pretty close to it, chances are you'll be coming down in trees, clearcuts, or a rushing river bed. Of course not. I don't recommend it for experienced jumpers who have little or no experience on moderately to highly loaded F-111 7-cells. There's plenty of people I see as an accident waiting to happen the first time they chop. That still doesn't make the PD/PR/PS series canopies aggressive or less forgiving. You're not, but don't ignore the large volume of replies that didn't support Scott's rant (his word), but instead pointed to (IMO and numerous others, including the jumper involved) the root cause of the injuries sustained in this incident: a radical low turn. I've done 'em, you've probably done 'em, and damn near everyone else has done 'em. Aside from students with less than a half-dozen who can validly claim ignorance, we all need to quit making this stupid mistake and stop doing 'em. Quite true. It's also very true is that radical low turns on any canopy at any wingloading greatly increases the risk factor and make landing injuries very likely. Quit ignoring that and asserting it isn't an issue here - it most certainly is. I read all of them and didn't see them. Scrumpot didn't either and even asked about it. I did read requests to read Scott's message, denial that a low turn was the issue, and a whole lot questions. I can infer a lot from what you did write, but I prefer not doing that beause way too often I'm wrong in my assumptions. Many don't frequent dropzone.com. Of those that do, I can't answer why they haven't posted. I'll point out again that many did reply on the crwdogs list, but you've neither posted their replies nor commented on them. My guess is because they didn't doing anything to sharpen Scott's axe. Why you're turning the grindstone for him I can only guess too. Is expressing one's self in a constructive, civil manner not a better way of discussing such a worthy issue? Or has rude language and vague finger pointing become the methods du jour for getting a message across? I did just that and gave concrete examples of exactly what I took offense to. It was the first time I've made any comment on it. This reply is my second and last about the e-mail. Show me where in anything I've written where I'm attacking Scott. On the contrary, I've pointed out exactly where in Scott's e-mail he does just that, and I feel you are choosing to ignore that and bolster him. A valid issue lost due to words? Talk to Scott about that. It's not you that needs to apologize, it's Scott. Not for bringing up wingloadings, but for sending a scathing e-mail through a third party directed at a community of skydivers he doesn't know. Bob PS - I do consider a Stilleto a less safe canopy than a Lightning at any wingloading. I've not heard of a single instance where a Lightning has been cutaway due to linetwists from opening or an aggressive toggle input; Stillettos have earned a nickname for it.

Mike, First you write and then later I think you know exactly why Genn says she's insulted. Still confused? How about: I'm insulted too, as is every other CRWdog I've spoken to regarding this e-mail. I have no idea what Scott is trying to accomplish with his shotgun blast message, but I can tell you it has pissed a whole lot of people off (he did say he didn't care). People that don't deserve such scathing words. As far as cranial-rectal extraction goes, maybe Scott can pull his own head out long enough to get to know some of the people he takes the time to torch. Where do you come off with this statement? If you know anything about the CRW community, you should know what you're saying is very wrong. We have an enviable safety record, and go out of our way to keep it that way. CRW will learn from this incident and work to make things even safer, in spite of Scott's e-mail. You do realize the Lighting is based on the same airfoil and planform as the PD Reserve, right? Not exactly what I'd call aggressive / less forgiving. The overwhelming majority do, but you and Scott would need to spend some time with us to know that. I noticed you posted Scott's e-mail to the crwdogs list and two places here at dropzone.com, but didn't post any of the replies from the list (notably Kirk VanZandt's explaining why the Lightning wingloading is what it is). Why is that? What exactly is it you are trying to accomplish? Don't reply saying you're concerned about CRW wingloads - you haven't said anything about it in any of your posts. Rather, you've posted a very confrontational message and have sat back to watch the fireworks. Fortunately or unfortunately, most CRWdogs either don't frequent dropzone.com or have chosen not to respond in kind. Bob Lyon D-18973, NCCS-224 2000 US 8-way Speed Team 2002 CF Record Americas 56-way 2003 CF World Record 64-way (x2), 65-way, and 70-way

The jumper involved in the unfortunate incident that prompted this and several other threads is out of the hospital and recuperating at home. They've taken the time to write an e-mail regarding the incident and their recovery progress, and have given their permission to post it on dropzone.com. See here. Bob

With the author's permission, I'm posting a recent e-mail to the crwdogs mailing list by the jumper involved in the unfortunate incident that prompted this and several other threads. Hopefully it will shed some light on what occurred and perhaps help in preventing it from happening again. I wish them a full and speedy recovery and hope I have the chance to meet and skydive with them in the future. Bob From: "***** :)" To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:29:17 -0500 Subject: low turn at february CRW camp First of all, I want to thank every one of you that called, came and visited me, sent me a card, e-mailed me, and just hoped i would be able to recover. I would first like to say what happened to me is my own fault. I don't know why i did a low turn like i did (my brain is still not allowing me to remember). I know better than to do a turn like that, yet i still did it under my canopy. Wingloading wasn't an issue on this accident. I could have been under a gigantic canopy, and the same results would have still occured. I got very lucky with this accident. Both my surgeons, have informed me that i should recover, and be able to jump again (although my femur surgeon made sure to tell me that I should think hard about jumping again, he doesn't agree with it). Tuesday I even got an okay to fly out of Florida. Wednesday, I flew to buffalo with my mom, where I'm currently staying until I can start walking on my leg (should be another month or so). The femur was a compound fracture which required 3 surgeries, the 3rd surgery a titanium rod had to be placed in my leg(so i can set off metal detectors now). That was the least of my problems though. I also had a aortic tear, but due to the injury they were afraid that even with the by-pass that was created, I wasn't getting blood to my brain, so they had to cut me open from the front of my chest, so they could clamp a bunch of veins, so i could still receive blood to the brain. I was told surviving that surgery is quite low, and I was real lucky. I just wanted to thank all you guys. As I mentioned, I'm out of florida now (no offense to you guys who live there, but THANK GOODNESS i'm back up north). I look forward to doing CRW with you soon (not too soon though, i got to get to be 100% first). Have some awesome jumps, and blue skies always, ***** :)

I'm curious, was it stacked or planed? Was the PC kill line or something non-collapsible? I've done a number of CRW jumps with normal PC setups (ie. non-retractable) and haven't run into this (and would rather not). Cool. Just be real careful if you're doing CRW with HP canopies. You certainly don't want to repeat Tim and Brit's experience, or worse. As cool as they look (actually, because of how cool they look), I'm not a big fan of the Parachutist pics depicting CRW with HP canopies. They don't show how bad it can get or how fast that can happen when something goes wrong. Bob

1. Being a competitor on the a US Parachute Team at the 8th WPC in CF at Imatra, Finland in July 2000. 2. Participating in world record big-way CRW with the best in the world for a week, topped off by a 70-way world record on the last jump of the last day of the meet in November 2003. Bob

Lurking CRWdog here, Yeah, what Chuck said. I have less than a half dozen jumps under anything other than a 7-cell and don't swoop at all, yet I consider myself a very good canopy pilot. I have quite a lot of respect for the art of swooping and those that do it, but it's far from all there is to flying a canopy. Bob

LOL!!! This is one of the funniest ways of describing a very serious thing that I've read here. Thanks Jeanne, I'll remember that one! Bob

I couldn't agree more. Most CRWdogs shrug off wraps, entanglements, cutaways, etc. that many jumpers would consider life defining events. Five minutes after the dive ends and the gear is recovered the biggest question is "how soon do you think can you get (re)packed and on a load?" There was a 44-way funnel during one of the CF world record dives that resulted in 6 cutaways, but it was barely mentioned beyond "gee, that sucked", "I'm glad I wasn't in that", and "let's try not doing that again." It's not that we're complacent, unconcerned, or unsafe - in fact just the opposite is true. But it comes with the territory, is dealt with directly (usually by an immediate de-brief), and then we move on. Bob

The most common line injuries are burns or cuts caused by a burning (sliding) action, not cuts alone. Spectra is better than Dacron in this respect because it's far more slippery (also harder to grip for the same reason). Cuts alone are likely occur when a line is draped across exposed skin and significant weight is applied. The risk of these can be greatly reduced by 1) avoiding situations where one is deep in the lines (eg. planes) and 2) wearing clothes to minimize exposed skin. For all the talk I've heard of being sliced and diced by microline, I've never dialogued with or even heard of anyone it has actually happened to. I've experienced numerous minor Dacron burns first hand and seen plenty of others that were worse. Unless you're doing world class rotations (hardly casual CRW) or are completely inept at basic canopy control (perhaps CRW isn't the right discipline), the risk is pretty small. There's a far greater risk from unintentional canopy and/or line contact leading to entanglements and/or wraps. When I coach someone on their first CRW dive(s), it's a 2-way no contact dive so I can get a feel for how they fly close to another canopy, regardless of how many jumps they have. The biggest problem I've run into with cascaded lines is setting the foot grip, because of the line geometry. The grip is further back than normal. Other than that cascades are just a pain - shimmy down until the feet hit the V, reset the foot grips below it, shimmy down some more until the hands reach the V, reset the hand grips below it, then shimmy down the rest of the way. I avoid planning (ie. a compressed stack) microlined canopies because I don't like being that deep in microlines. Many world class CRW teams use Triathlons, and go home with medals. The Russian rotation team does consistent 21 point skydives (world record pace) with them. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't blame the canopy. I've got about 250 jumps on a 160 (including 50 or so CRW jumps) and my opinion can be summed up as "jack of all trades, master of none" - just what I expected of it. Bob

Brian made a few posts recently that addressed this. Here's a start. Bob

I don't think it is being done, or at least I haven't seen a lot of it. In fact, I've seen and heard plenty of evidence of just the opposite. Someone crashes and burns and the ensuing discussion is full of phrases like "I never knew", "nobody told me", or "really?" I'd love to be wrong on my observations. I hope it is part of student progressions and I'm just blind to it. As many have pointed out, students often don't know what they're ignorant of and have no basis to ask questions from. Their mind is already overloaded just getting from the plane to the ground. I will say I've seen classes observe experienced jumpers landing while the instructor narrates. The problem with that is the experienced folks are often jumping smaller, more agile canopies, swooping, or screwing up things themselves (perhaps because they never really learned). So all too often what one hears is "don't do what they just did" as opposed to "see that landing? That was good". Heck, plenty of jumpmasters do a mach 2 approaches with a spectacular swoop after a load of students. While there's not a thing wrong that, the only value to the student is "don't try that yourself", and they still don't know what to do. What I'm thinking of is videos, photos, discussion, etc. that show the kind of canopy control they should be focusing on at their level. Make sure to cover all items on the list, and verify through quizzing, etc. to make sure they understand it. Maybe the first jump instructor asks someone they know to demostrate some things first hand. "See that red & white canopy? Watch their approach. Notice how they smoothly apply the brakes for a nice stand-up landing". That sort of thing. Bob

... at least before the neck brace. Bob

That's excellent Chuck. I'm all for paid canopy control courses and the like, but based on what I've seen I think many students are getting short-changed in canopy instruction given the total cost of AFF/IAD/SL programs. If a unlicensed student progresses to the point of being able to jumpmaster themselves, they should have been exposed to and show and understanding of all the items on Bill's list. Once they're licensed and can perform those maneuvers themselves on a student canopy, only then are they ready to take a paid course. Bob

CRWdogs add weight all the time to match wingloadings. While I don't consider it unsafe, I do think it's a negative factor and probably unnecessary for anything other than CRW. It's decidedly not equivalent to downsizing to an equivalent wingloading on a smaller canopy. Bob

I'm sure not. There are often expectations of those being sponsored that wouldn't be there otherwise. Such expectations can be far in excess of the sponsorship value. I'm all for cheaper as opposed to more expensive, but given a choice between owing something vs. paying full price I'll happily spend my money with no further obligation. Bob

Stop it! All this happy talk about new Lightnings and great dealer service is really beginning to piss me off. Now I want a new Lightning (like the one Remko jumped on the world record - all white except for the red A-lines), though I can barely afford jump tickets these days. Bwwwwaaaaaahhh... Bob (suffering from CRW withdrawal in the worse way. Just two more weeks to the Shahin Shebang in Lodi!)

um ... err ... well ... uh ... I think it's crap shoot. I've not met a single FAA person who knows what CRW is (not saying there aren't any), and their usual response to things they don't know is "no". If a two stack lands in Yankee stadium and 60,000 spectators cheer wildly, chances are no FAA person watching it is going to rain on that parade. If the same two stack crashs and burns, I think it's all but guaranteed some g-man will be looking to rip someone (pilot/jumper(s)/person who authorized it) a new one. I freely admit this is speculation on my part. I'm not PRO rated and have never done an actual demo, though I've landed out in some interesting places and even received applause for it a couple times. Bob Edited to add: Probably the best thing we can do is take the time to educate (photos/videos/discussion) the folks who authorize these jumps. That'll take some of the mystery out of it and give them a better basis for decision making.

I was unaware of that. I mistook what you were saying to be the equivalent of "since you're a CFI you have a commercial rating". Thanks for the clarification. Bob

This is not true in the US. A skydiving instructor examiner is a USPA rating; a master rigger is a FAA rating. Bob

I'll agree it's not quite the same and I've seen videos that show the effect you describe (including Chico's Rantoul wrap vid where the reserve was deployed by the centrifugal force of the spin he was in). The one canopy transfer I actually saw deployed straight back, so it can happen either way. Yeah, I'm all for that. Let us know what you find out. I'd do it myself asap, but I'm not a rigger and it's good for 100+ days now assuming I don't need to use it before then. Bob