rigging65

There are actually very clear definitions in the Sac County protocols of what you can and cannot carry while off duty, ALS wise...but that only counts in Sacramento county, for those of us certified there. In Yolo county, you're under SSV. They have different protocols and different rules of engagement. You can't legally operate as ALS outside the county in which you're certified...mostly because you can only hold ALS certification if you are associated with an ALS agency in the county in which you are certified! You can't freelance ALS like you can BLS. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Great attitude for a public servant...I bet that works real well for you on calls... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

The "no running" rule does apply to police and fire. Again, we don't run. Dress in your snow/ski clothes, put a 35 weight on your back and wrap a shirt around your mouth, then try to run 100 yards, then try to button up the buttons on your shirt. Your hands shake, your head bobs up and down as you try to catch your breath, your head swims and your vision blurs. That's what it's like for a fire guy. EMS guys have it just as bad, just due to the amount of gear that has to be moved to a scene...that stuff is heavy and awkward! Now imagine if you had to a) maneuver through a smoke filled house dragging 50 or 60 lbs behind you (a charged hose line), b) start an IV (like threading a medium sized needle with thread), or c) figure out medicine calculation based off a guestimated weight after making that little run. That's a pretty average day for us. And, with due respect, until you've done it you have no idea why it's difficult to do. Take a class, do a ride along, get some education on why things are the way they are. It should be clear by now that pretty much everyone on this board who's involved with fire/EMS feels the same way...think there might be a reason why? "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

We don't run...it never saved anyones life, and it's hurt more than one person. Moving with a purpose is a much safer way to get the job done. Think about this: If the guy carrying the backboard came running back, tripped and twisted his ankle, who is going to go back and get the board from him? And who is going to take care of him? And who is going to either a) drive the ambulance now or b) treat the patient now?? I don't know why they didn't park closer. Lots of times we prefer to carry a patient out over rough ground, as opposed to driving them out. It's much less bumpy (read: less painful), and usually just as fast. Being an Paramedic that was/is intimately involved with a local DZ, I can tell you this: there is not time to explain your actions on scene...not to mention it's not our job. If you have a problem, call someone in charge and talk with them. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

That's not entirely true. There is a legal modification (i.e. - it has FAA approval) for the addition of a ring to a riser that does not have one. It's a larkshead-type design and has been around for quite a few years...of course, it needs to be built to spec. and all that good stuff. It's totally removable and can be fit to almost any main riser, either side. It was originally written to be a "Loft certification", but as the FAA doesn't allow that (I think they used to??), the individual components have to be built by a specific master rigger who has submitted paperwork to the FAA to built the parts. You can contact Action Air Parachutes http://www.actionair.com and speak with Ray Ferrell. He holds the authorization...it's a really easy gig and it allows any set of risers to be fit for use with an RSL. For those that are going to throw out the "you can't do that because you're not a manufacturer" card, it was very thoroughly researched and, yes, it can be done. Main risers are not part of the TSO, and a properly authorized and manufactured part can be fitted to a rig by a certified master rigger. Most mfgs. don't like to tell you that, but it's the truth. Master riggers have the ability to determine compatibility between parts... Anyway, it's a nice way to retrofit any risers to fit an RSL! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Seems to me it has nothing to do with the Parachute maker...it would have more to do with the Harness and Container maker (as they're the ones who create the deployment system that is actually in question). With that said, Harness and Container makers in the past 15 (maybe 20?) years haven't come up with anything new. Everyone is using one of the standard deployment systems. Having been a Harness and Container manufacturer, and having gone through the TSO process, I can tell you that there really isn't much new out there right now. Some small things maybe, but it's still basically a container with flaps that holds a parachute in place, with some sort of a system designed to get that parachute into the air without it tangeling up. Stating that only a manufacturer can define something doesn't really make sense. The system, by nature, defines itself. If it's designed to do a job, in a specific order, and it does that job, in that order, then, by definition, it's "in sequence". It's doesn't make sense to state that a pull out system is an out of sequence deployment, unless you're comparing it to a throw out sequence...which is like comparing apples to oranges. They're both fruit, but that's about where it ends. Look at the engineering people! If it's designed to work a specific way, and it works that way, than it's "in" sequence! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Says who????? "Proper" is a pretty strong word, considering there are other systems out there that work "properly" each time and don't follow that sequence. (ie - pulls outs, static line deployment with pilot chute assist....) "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

--A quick primer, for those that don't habla "pull out"-- The pull out system is a pretty basic design that has you pack all your bridle and the pilot chute itself into the container before you close the flaps. You just lay it all on top of the bag and pull the flaps across. Attached to the base of the PC (usually on the bridle itslef) is a tab with a grommet through it. A small pillow-like handle with a small lanyard (a couple of inches long) and a straight pin at the end all run through that tabbed-grommet (look up some pics of it and the construction will make more sense...it's pretty simple). Only the handle, small lanyard and pin are outside the container after it is closed. You pin the container closed and route the small lanyard under one of the side flaps just to keep it out of the wind. The handle is attached in the same place your hackey sits, usually with a fold-out pocket of some sort and velcro. When it's time to deploy, you pull the handle, which opens the container, then continue pulling, which drags the pc into the air. The benefits (as I see them): 1) YOU open the container, not the pilot chute. When you pull on that handle, you know the container is open. Since it's a short lanyard, you literally pull about 3 inches and feel the pop. 2) Because YOU open the container, and there is no energy used by the pc to do it, there is almost no pc hesitation. Deployments are "quicker" (NOT harder, they just feel like they happen in a faster sequence...because they do). This means there is less time for things to get snagged up, wrapped up, or otherwise f*%&ed up. 3) Also, since the PUD handle is attached at the base of the pc, and you drag it into the air, there is NO hesitation while the pc unwraps itself and catches air (some people qualify this as a negative...see below). I like this fact, since there is no bridle dancing around on your back while the pc gets wind in it. READ: reduction in the posibilty of horseshoe mals

Yes, I'm aware of Mr. Booth's post....it was in response to one of my posts. In my mind at least, for something to be "out of sequence" there can only be one sequence that works. Since there is obviously more than one way to get a parachute into the air, and those ways all work, there can be more than one sequence. I certainly respect Mr. Booth and have actually spoken with him on several occasions about this and other points (many of which we agree on). But this is one point we disagree on. The pull-out works, and it works well. It works better for some people than for others, and each jumper needs to make their own decision. No one person's opinion (neither mine nor Mr. Booth's) is adequate to make a decision on... Gather your own information, and be honest with yourself. Be a smart jumper and don't take ANYONE's opinion as gospel. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

I agree with most of what you said, but I've always had a problem with this: It's only "out of sequence" if you define "in sequence" as the order in which a throw out system works. People have been saying pull-outs are out-of-sequence for years and it's just not true. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Just my $0.02, but I've always liked the idea that your container is either open or closed...and you know which one it is...with a pull-out. It does require a bit more thought when packing, but if you're using a packer you can always ask them to just pack it and pin it, and let you finish putting the PUD away. Since most "hard pulls" on pull-outs are from a rotated grommet, this reduces that chance...and, more importantly, gives you peace of mind. Either system works just fine...when all goes well...but, only IMO, I'd rather deal with the clean, fast mals associated with the pull-out (even if you want to argue that they may be more prevalent) than with the drawn out, uncertain mals associated with a throw out. Never wanting to put words into anyones mouth, I might also throw out there that Mr. Booth has to think of skydivers as a general "group" and may make his recommendations based off that...as would (and did) I when I was working in the sport. Individuals are just that, individual. Some people may do better with a PUD than others...just as with any other tool. Always discuss your potential choices with someone you trust, and is honestly qualified to intelligently discuss the options with you, before you make a decision....this goes for jumpers with 20 jumps or 2000! Like I said, just my $0.02!! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

The short answer is "yes" a bag lock should develop enough drag to pull your RSL, BUT... The thing with a bag lock is that your main riser covers don't always come open, as there may not be enough drag to pop them out. If this is the case, then the pull angles are wrong and there may be serious problems with getting the system to work right. Friction and drag and all that.... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

IMO, that's a little bit like saying seatbelts are useless because they only help about 1% of the time. True, MANY vehicle accidents don't require a seat belt to remain safe, and there are certainly incidents where seatbelts have killed or at least badly hurt people. BUT...when you need it, if it's not on, you're screwed. That's the way I look at RSLs. They have positives and negatives, and if you're 'on the ball' and not incapacitated, you'll most likely be just fine without one. But, if things aren't just perfect, then it's probably going to save your life. Besides, it's really easy to sit down and say "don't lose altitude awareness" , "don't get incapacitated", etc. No one goes out the door thinking "I'll try and lose altitude awareness on this jump and separate my shoulder"... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

JCs aren't the only places that offer EMT-1 (or Basic) certification. Check out your area, call the Red Cross and AHA and they can probably point you in the right direction. Some Vol. houses even do in-house EMT-1 certification or are associated with a program. I know the Vol. house I started with had an "in" with the local University extension program (because we let their EMT classes practice patient extrication from mangled cars on our training grounds). Basically, if you were in the dept. and wanted to get your EMT, you had a spot. You might look into some ROP programs within the local, larger fire depts. Often, they will have associated programs to get your EMT. The last option, that really isn't a bad idea, but is a bit more expensive, is to go through a private school. NCTI in NorCal isn't too bad. They have several campuses (campi ?) to choose from. My last 2 cents, having recently been through the long process to get hired and am now working as a FF/P, don't give up. It OFTEN takes many years of testing and retesting to get picked up. But, if it's what she wants to do, it'll happen if she just doesn't give up. I know guys who have been testing, working in Vol. houses, etc. for 4 and 5 years before getting picked up...but they did eventually get hired. Incidentally, make sure she's sharp on her interview skills. It really makes or breaks your chances! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Bag locks caused by locking loops overlapping each other...something that is pretty easily fixed by proper packing technique. Tuck tabs worked well for me, but they basically create a finite pack volume in the bag (as opposed to a range), because when you fit the tuck tabs for the proper tension, the volume has to be kept the same or else the tabs get too loose, or they won't close without bending. In my experience, even a sloppy vs. clean packjob changes the volume enough to effect the tabs. It might be that going from Florida to Arizona would change the volume enough to cause problems (due to changes in humidity)...who knows. Long ago, in a similar thread, I stated that, IMO, stowless bags are a cool gadget, but without much practical application...and they are downright dangerous for the average, un-informed, user. There's just too much variance in volume to be really practical, IMO. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."