Airman1270

A few come to mind, with Bob Raeke topping the list. He taught me the first jump course, JM'ed me on a bunch of my milestone student jumps over the skies of Duanesburg, NY, and signed me off instruction. He exhibited the perfect mix of no-nonsense attention to safety spiced up by his playful conviction that jumping out of airplanes is fun. Too bad I never got to jump with him after graduating. Damn shame. Several Georgia jumpers also deserve to make the list, including Collis Griffin, Perry Thibadeau, & Sandor Vali. And while I've never met Scotty Carbone, I've heard enough stories to know I'd enjoy sharing the DZ with him. Cheers, Jon

After jumping a 290 sq.ft. Star-Trac for 11 years, I recently "downsized" to a Triathalon 220 without ever trying it out. What a sweet canopy! Nice openings & landings & everything in between. It's plenty fast enough, yet docile enough for my austere jumping schedule. (Averaging 3-5 jumps per month.) I'm around 220lbs. naked. (Sorry for the mental image...) Haven't tried out my Smart 190, but it'll likely be at least as nice as my 26' Strong lopo. Nothing wrong with the Vector, but too bad you don't have an Infinity. Thanks for your service. Happy skies. Cheers, Jon S.

Yeah, put me in the B-12 column. I had B-12's installed on my Infinity. The DZO surmised that the folks who put the rig together said to themselves "He's old." Nothing against the other type; I may once have used a borrowed rig with step-thru's, though I don't remember. In fact, these rigs look cooler than mine. But after jumping a Wonderhog for so many years I'm not accustomed to looking cool, anyway. The only drawback I can think of is if you take out a formation or otherwise piss people off, and they can more easily unsnap your legstraps just before break-off. Cheers, Jon

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ True, an AAD can be useful despite one's best efforts to avoid a "situation," but I hate to see people pass up the sport because they can't afford a Cypres. With a little awareness & common sense you'll spend your entire jumping career without ever needing an AAD. Many of us have lasted many years without one. I won't quibble with AAD requirements for students, but I think you're far too eager to accept this "big brother" mentality of forcing everyone to wear one. I used an AAD for most of my student jumps. In fact, when I had about 20-ish jumps I was gearing up and they brought me a (chest mount) reserve without one. I asked if I could have an AAD and they said "sure!" and reminded me not to be shy about asking. As I approached the end of my student career I began jumping the used rig I would soon be buying. The DZO simply reminded me that it didn't have an AAD and that if anything happened I'd have to be sure to pull the reserve myself. There was nothing unusual or controversial about this. (Besides, I had already had my first reserve ride on my 14th jump and had pulled it myself, before the AAD went off.) It's a pure cost/benefit issue. I can't/don't want to deal with the concomitant costs & maintenance hassles (not to mention the outside possibiliy of a misfire) associated with AAD's. Yes, an accident can happen. As in other situations, I place my trust in the same God who knows when the sparrows fall. I would appreciate DZO's & other authorities not interfering with my choice & imposing their own narrow views on me by forcing me to use an AAD just because they think I should. If you follow the incident reports, you'll see far more people getting hurt & dying while landing hot, fast canopies than by going in on no-pulls. Enjoy your sky!! Cheers, Jon

Welcome! It is possible to buy good used equipment and enjoy the sport even if you can't turn your new hobby into a lifestyle. If you can only make a few jumps a month, try to pack them into the same couple of days, rather than doing one here, another there, etc., at least until you develop some basic flying skills. Your learning curve will not be as dramatic as that of your peers, but you'll still have a great time with a bunch of great people and you will, over time, improve. Safety has more to do with your attitude than your gadjets. One of the biggest curses in the sport has become the widespread use of AAD's, only because this has led to a mindset whereby people become afraid to jump without them. Back when most jumpers didn't use AAD's we didn't approach the door with added apprehension. We really didn't think about it. Today, new jumpers are being trained to regard the lack of an AAD as not much different than jumping without a reserve. If your DZ won't let you jump without one, find one that will. And, of course, if you want an AAD and can afford one, go for it. You don't need an audible altimeter, booties, or the latest top-of-the-line helmet, either. Just progress at your own pace and enjoy your sky time. Let us know how it's going. Cheers, Jon S.

...Once again, generalizations are rarely true... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Including this one. Jon S.

Has anyone made a jump as a result of your direct influence? Have they stayed in the sport? I made my first jump with a friend. (I broke my ankle, he did fine.) He never jumped again, and frankly wasn't all that interested in the first place, but we were in our mid-20's & single and when I suggested it his attitude was "Okay, I guess...whatever..." My Dad & I bought my brother a tandem for his birthday, after he'd expressed some interest. While watching the ground and waiting for the main to deploy, Steve (a marine who thought nothing of rappelling out of helicopters) decided that this was kinda cool but still crazy, and that if he landed safely he'd never do it again. A former girlfriend came out to watch, then surprised me a few days later by saying she wanted to try it. She made two static-line jumps from the Ranch's Cessna, and was aware enough to see the instructors head watching as she fell away. She described the second ride down as nice, but a bit boring, and never did it again. A few years later, during the breakup, she said "I jumped out of a plane for you!" I told her that was a stupid thing to do... And of course, many people have expressed interest, some sincere, but have never managed to get out to the DZ and just do it. How about you? Cheers, Jon S

Thanks. I'm kinda new here, and learning the customs... A recent discussion had its share of "dead horse" potential. Still, questions had been asked that hadn't been answered, and new information did trickle through the haze from time to time. It was still interesting. Then came the conversation stopper - the cry of "Troll" from a rather hostile participant. If my understanding of "troll" is accurate, it didn't apply. Yet, someone thought it did. What are the guidelines? Thanks, Jon

Hey guys: I don't mean to give the impression that I'm ignoring your experience/advice, but I take exception to using words such as "unsafe", "dangerous", "not airworthy", etc. to describe a well-maintained rig in good shape that works the way it was designed to work. If you take a safe rig, and add features which make it a little safer, this does not mean the original version is no longer safe. Many examples have been provided here that do not apply to my situation. The most recent had to do with an ROL system in which a pilot chute was not properly secured in its pouch. As for the video guy's comment about getting out of the way, we learned years ago the wisdom of avoiding any position directly above or below another jumper. Premature deployments can happen for a wide variety of reasons. This fact is not limited to older gear. AAD's are very reliable, but are not perfect. Some people claim I'm not respecting their experience. I feel the same way. My years of experience, as well as that of a number of riggers (who presumeably have received the same training as the folks in this thread) who have affirmed the integrity of my rig, are being dismissed by people who cannot quantify their claims that it's dangerous, other than to point out improvements made in recent years. Many factors have to do with one's safety. Added together, my situation does not justify hysterical alarm. (In fact, in a recent risk-assessment exercise in PARACHUTIST, I scored in the lower risk category.) I concede that my old rig may, in & of itself, lack certain features recently incorporated in gear design which add an extra measure of peace-of-mind. This added margin is statistically insignificant, given several other factors. (For example, I don't do much head-down or sit flying.) I also use a larger canopy, and have recently "downsized" to a 220 sq. ft. main. In the 70's & 80's we did not have an epidemic of people dying under well-maintained, properly operated gear. Most fatalities involved people going in with at least one parachute still in the container. As for asking Carl Nelson, I can't - he's dead. I don't know the circumstances, but I was told this was some sort of drug situation. Meanwhile, today we have no shortage of people dying under the best gear money can buy. Some of you won't touch my rig because you think if I use it I'll surely die, yet you'll eagerly work for someone who jumps an 80 sq.ft. canopy and approaches the ground so fast a dropped toggle can mean the difference between life & death. I was hoping someone could prove that older gear becomes more dangerous as it ages, but I defer to the guy who has more time in the sport than do many of us combined, who said he's been asking this question for many years and has yet to receive a suitable explanation. If the FAA has really concluded that gear that is 20+ years old is no longer reliable, I'm ready to consider the information. In the meantime, where can I get some vacuum tubes?... Thanks, Jon

Right. And blast handles did not become more dangerous when D-handles came out. Blast handles are still dangerous, though. Four-pin, no-PC rigs did not become any more dangerous when modern gear came out, but that doesn't mean they are safe to use by any standards we use today... There is even some gear that I wouldn't allow on a load I was organizing, because the odds of it opening in the door (or in freefall) is too high, and that could endanger the other people on my load.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ None of these "worst case" situations apply here. The rig does not have a blast handle, a four-pin & cone ripcord arrangement, or vacuum tubes. In addition, the reserve DOES have a diaper and worked fine when I needed it. Pin protection is secure. Furthermore, about a dozen years ago I had the canvas pilot chute pouch replaced with spandex. It works the same way my Infinity does. The lack of riser covers are nothing to be concerned about, as I don't do the type of skydiving in which this would pose a problem. The rig works exactly as it was designed to do. If it were truly dangerous I would likely have had a problem with it sometime during the past two decades. I can think of at least six riggers who have maintained it over the past dozen or so years, including one particularly well-respected "elder statesman" of the sport in this area. None have had a problem with it, and a few have commented favorably on it's above-average condition. To claim that I have a cavalier attitude toward my safety is absurd. Non-jumpers can easily make the same accusation toward all of us. By this logic, any automobile that does not have an air-bag and an ONSTAR system is dangerous. Jon

You continue to push the boundaries of "ridiculous" to new heights. By "competence," I mean I trust you to pack, repair, etc. any gear brought to you. You may not want to, but I know you can do it. By "judgement," I mean your claim, without evidence, that my rig is dangerous. By "intelligence," I mean your ability to discern the difference. Not only are you prejudiced against older gear, without offering any evidence that it's dangerous, but you're apparently prejudiced against people who don't make a lot of jumps. True, my learning curve is not as dramatic as that of someone who spends every weekend at the DZ and makes 200+ jumps per year. (I suppose you're next going to attempt to redefine "current" so as to suggest I'm a high-risk jumper.) One of the problems facing the sport today is a sub-culture that believes that one cannot participate safely without immersing oneself totally into DZ life. The sport is not set up to accomodate those of us who have other things to do with our lives besides skydive. I've reached a fair balance between skydiving and real life, and am quite comfortable with it. I don't understand why it's an issue to you. In my many years I've known many people who make many more jumps than I do. This is not news. When evaluating the integrity of a piece of equipment your number of jumps and your instructor rating are irrelevant. It's scary that you fail to understand this. I'm not asking to have my ass kissed; I'm asking not to be treated like crap. My original question struck a nerve with you; you've responded by treating me harshly without justifying your claim that my rig is unsafe. You only hear what you want to hear. Jon

Actually, you haven't! I think it has already been established that what you think does not count, in the eyes of the FAA that is. So repeating your own claims about how great the gear is does not prove it is not dangerous. One thing you are very good at is putting words in someone's mouth. No where have I said your "old rig is a hole in the ground waiting to happen". And could you tell me where it is that I made "slanderous accusations against the integrity" of anyone? If you wish to discuss the facts of any subject, you first have to understand what is fact and what is made up nonsense. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Okay, if you insist... I have a fine piece of equipment here, well cared for with relatively low milage. Some riggers say it's dangerous, some do not. The riggers who have actually worked on it say it's not. Riggers who claim this rig is unsafe have never seen it. The opinions of riggers who have worked with this rig trump those of riggers who have not. In seeking opinions as to why some riggers won't service the gear, I hear unfounded fears about what might possibly happen, rather than what is likely to happen. Furthermore, many of the votes against the rig are based on the fact that better gear has since been invented. For example, the Wonderhog, the best rig on the market when it was introduced, did not suddenly become dangerous because, in later years, riser covers and RSL's became standard features. If anyone actually has evidence that the rig is dangerous, they'll be able to explain why without citing irrelevant facts, such as design updates made in later years, or the fact that they have a lot of jumps and hold an instructor rating. Repeating your own claims about how dangerous the gear is does not make it so. If the FAA has accumulated information indicating that this rig is no longer reliable, per the standards to which it was manufactured, I'd like to see it. It certainly has not been posted here. A week or so back, when I said I got new gear because "it was time," I was referring to the household budget, not the reliability of the rig. I've wanted to update my gear for many years, but with three kids and a non-jumping wife there were so many other demands on the family income. I intend to keep jumping Old Faithful at times, and don't appreciate this hysterical atitude poisoning the thinking of the sport's future riggers, who are being trained to regard old gear as dangerous despite the lack of any solid evidence to back up the claim. Jon S.

...And you have not backed up your claim that it is not dangerous... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Actually, I have. I described the relatively low number of jumps on the rig, as well as the manner in which it's been stored. I also noted that a number of local riggers have had no problem servicing the gear for me. If you insist (sight unseen) that my old rig is a hole in the ground waiting to happen, than you are making slanderous accusations against the integrity of the Relative Workshop, as well as the riggers who have known this gear more intimately than anyone participating in this discussion. Jon

>...He is hands down one of the best riggers I've seen... Thanks. I questioned his judgement, but not his competence. I apologize for leaving the impression I might have thought he had not earned his rigger rating. I've always respected riggers, and "Hook" is no exception. If he was willing to work for me I'd trust any piece of equipment that passed through his hands. Jon

You are free to establish whatever policies you want. But your position is based on prejudice against older gear. You have not backed up your claim that my old classic rig is dangerous. You have simply explained why you "think" it's dangerous, and your explanation is based on little else than the fact that better gear has since been invented. The fact that you cited your instructor rating as a professional qualification to determine the airworthiness of a rig you've never seen did little to enhance your credibility. So, when did you make your first jump? Jon

>...Would it help to have a digital altimeter which would produce a set of audible beeps in which either the pitch or repeat rate matches the altitude over ground level? They could start at a set altitude(100feet or so?), and this way the jumper could have accurate altitude measurement all the way down without having to look at the altimeter... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Oh, please no! Once something like this becomes popular, it won't be but a few years before some DZO nazis start making them mandatory. . Cheers, Jon

Gee, coming to work in the morning is much more fun than ususal this week... >...they have the ability to rationally look at a piece of equipment and decide if they are willing to risk their entire life on signing off on a piece of equipment... That's precisely my point - he never looked at it. NO rig can guarantee that an accident will never happen. The issue has to do with a variety of factors having nothing to do with its age. I'd be interested in seeing a debate between people like "Hook" and the riggers who have had no problem working for me. I bought the rig from a guy who made a few jumps, then drifted out of the sport. He stored it in a closet for about seven years before putting it up for sale in PARACHUTIST. A national magazine, and he sold it to someone who lived two miles away. When I took it to my rigger, he was astonished at how new & fresh it was. The rig had fewer than 100 jumps on it. It currently has about 700. My Strato Cloud has about 300. "Hook" compared the rig to the Wright Flyer. A better analogy would be the P-51: Long since outclassed, but the best of its kind back when it was introduced. I'll bet no one gives Bill Dause any grief for flying his Mustang. Of course nobody is obligated to pack ANY rig. No debate there. What I'd like to know is: If you inspect the rig, affirm that it's in fine shape, and I later have an accident, How is that your responsibility? After all, you did your job. If there's something wrong with it and you place your seal on it, I could understand how you might have a problem. But if everything's in order, how does this translate into a threat to your livlihood, etc.? If this is the case, then it applies to ALL rigs. Thanks again, Jon

>...I said the rig lacks pin protection, riser >protection, bridle protection, and the reserve >system is poor at best.... The pin protection is fine. The reserve system works very well. While riser covers are a nice touch, the lack of these does not render a rig "dangerous" or "not airworthy." >...Vacum tubes work as designed... Vacuum tubes...? >...I said compare round malfunction stastics for >diapered and non-diapered rounds... Why? I already know both types have their good & bad points, and odds are I knew this years before you did. I'm not asking you to jump it. >I am offended that you called me prejudiced, even >though in your first post you are obviously >prejudiced against any rigger that refuses to pack >your 1977 Wonderhog. I was not speaking to anyone specifically, but, yes, now that you mention it, I do think your harsh attitude is based on prejudice rather than a rational evaluation of a rig you've never seen. Besides, it's a 1978 rig. The reserve was manufactured in 1977. It worked just fine when I last used it in '97. I'm not afraid of it. > Just having some fun. You had listed a number of perfectly fine rigs which were popular just a few years ago which you said you'd refuse to service. >Simple solution for you: Get your Rigger's >certificate. It isn't that hard and not expensive. If >you have the time and money to skydive, you >have the time and money to get your certificate... Awfully presumptuous, aren't we? I have family responsibilities, and manage to squeeze a few jumps a month around my kids, etc. Meanwhile, my wife bitches about all the time/money I spend at the DZ. Not that it'll never happen, but it won't happen this year. Good thing it's irrelevant to this discussion. >If your rig is so great, why did you buy a modern >rig?... That's a stupid question. It was finally time; besides, I was getting tired of being treated as some sort of circus freak whenever I strayed from my home DZ. Would have done it years ago, but the kids demand food, etc.... >...There are a lot of riggers that won't pack gear >older than 20-years old... I know. That's why I asked the original question that started this thread. >...I tried to answer your question why a rigger >wouldn't be willing to pack your rig. You seem to >take that answer as a personal insult and then try >to insult me and my abilities impling that I cannot >comprehend old gear and am biased against it for >no good reason... You are. If you're going to quibble over riser covers or round vs. square reserves, I suspect you're operating from a viewpoint tainted by prejudice against older gear. >Fatality rates have remained fairly constant, even >though there are a lot more jumps being made per >year than 20 years ago. The other difference is >the cause of fatalities. Rarely it is gear failure, >unlike 20 years ago... Back then the majority of fatalities involved people going into the ground with at least one parachute still in the container. The vast majority of these incidents could have been avoided by pulling a ripcord. In 22 years I can count maybe two or three incidents in which the guy died doing everything right. At least one of these involved modern gear w/ a square reserve. >...For $35.00 I'm not willing to take that risk... You're certifying it as safe & airworthy, not as modern, good looking, or fool-proof. As long as you find nothing wrong with the rig, per the standards it was designed to, and you pack the reserve properly, what is it to you? Check out a related thread in which someone listed several criteria regarding use, storage, etc. My rig passes by a wide margin. >I would be more than willing to place your 2 rigs >side by side and show you the safety >improvements your new rig has over your old rig. I >think you'll be surprised... The differences are primarily cosmetic. Riser covers and an RSL are nice, but not necessary for safe jumping. The bridle protection on both rigs is more than adequate. Perhaps you reacted so strongly to my original post because there was a grain of truth to my claim regarding prejudice. When did you make your first jump, anyway? Thanks, Jon

...I'd hate to end up at a distant DZ and be refused a repack, etc., because of some sort of "older gear" prejudice on the part of someone who was in diapers when I made my first jump, and whose experience with older stuff is dominated by "thought I was gonna die" campfire stories... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Guys, this keeps getting better. I'm getting angry P.M.'s from this guy in Colorado who got his panties in a wad over my original post. He says old rigs are dangerous even if they're in good condition and operate the way they were designed. When asked for details, he says they lack riser covers, "adequate pin protection," etc. He also says rounds are dangerous, etc., and went on to criticize their substandard reserve deployment. Funny, all these years, including three round reserve rides, and I never had a problem. Wait 'till he finds out about the static-line T-10's I trained on, or my first reserve ride being an unmodified ("pilot chute removed") 24' chest-mount.. This guy's real upset about a bunch of things, including my refusal to bow to his "expertise." How do these people rate a rigger's ticket if they believe all equipment manufactured before 2000 is inherently dangerous? Cheers, Jon

I do also think that people who aren't as current as they 'should' be (according to what guidelines?), shouldn't be treated as careless or dangerous, just be sure they are aware of the risks... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ For example... The biggest dive I've ever been on was a 20-way. Still, I could safely join a real big way, (50 - 100) without compromising anyone's safety. Of course, an event such as this requires people who can be in their slot at the right time. I don't fly well enough to be sure I'd be there, and for that reason I should not be included in the dive, at least not in a late diver slot. (I could go early diver or base without much of a problem.) If I WAS on the load, I might ruin the dive but I wouldn't hurt you. Cheers, Jon

If God did not intend for us to eat animals, why did He make them out of meat? , Jon S.

Currency is overrated. No, seriously, being current is good, but being aware at all times trumps the number of jumps you make in a given month. I average 3-5 jumps per month, and have been on such a schedule for many years. It's not a problem as long as I know my limits. For example, I would not join a night 24-way with borrowed gear. And, it's a good thing I have no aspirations to join a pond swooping competition, because I would have no business jumping a hot, fast canopy. It took a long time to develop basic RW skills, but once you're there you can make as few jumps as you want and still be safe. Of course, there are trade-offs; I'm quite sure my phone number is not on Jack Jeffries' Rolodex. The only problem is that "currency", like so many other aspects of the sport, becomes defined by the high-profile people who make 200+ jumps per year. These are the people who think you should endure formal retraining if you take a few months off. Sigh, Jon S.

...So why are many parachute riggers unwilling to even inspect (much less sign-off if airworthy) many 20-25 year old parachute systems?...Riggers that are afraid of older gear can NEVER give me a reasonable answer to this question. NEVER... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Thanks for the replies, both here and the P.M.'s. I've become involved in a spirited debate with a rigger in another state who has declared, sight unseen, my rig to be a dangerous piece of crap that he would NEVER have anything to do with. Despite the fact that it's been well maintained and stored in a climate-controlled room, and that I've used it for nearly 20 years without incident, he decided that it's not airworthy, period. Not because there's anything wrong with it, but because it's old. He even cited his many jumps and his instructor rating as factors enabling him to make this judgement. I asked how a rig, which was the state-of-the-art just 25 years ago, could become dangerous despite being in excellent shape; his reply was that better gear has since been invented. He is afraid that if he services my old gear and something bad happens, he'll be held responsible. Not because theres anything wrong with it, but because it's old. I saw this coming nearly 20 years ago when a well known rigger announced he would not pack or otherwise service round reserves, because he thinks squares are better. Not too long ago, I predicted that people getting into the sport now would accumulate several years' experience without ever having any experience with rounds, older containers, or making hundreds of jumps without an AAD. Some of these people would eventually run their own DZ's and start banning perfectly good equipment and requiring AAD's because they had been conditioned to regard older stuff & lack of an AAD as dangerous. Methinks some newer jumpers have listened to one too many "twisted belly band" campfire stories. Cheers, Jon

...The ground fills your entire field of vision (there's no horizon) and is spreading out _fast_. It's pretty good arround 1000 feet at terminal, a few hundred feet sub-terminal... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ March, '88 - My first cutaway, around 2000'-ish, flipped over and tried to pull the reserve, but it wouldn't come out. Tried a few times and finally got it with two hands. Got open at 400', about three seconds before impact. The ground got real big, real fast. As the pilot chute launched, I just watched. Imagine being on the ground & watching someone in freefall at 500'. That's how fast the ground is coming up. Wow. Cheers, Jon

I have a Wonderhog w/a Strong lopo manufactured in 1977. Have been using the rig since the mid-80's, including two terminal reserve deployments, the last one in 1997. The rig is well-maintained and in excellent shape. Yet, I understand there are riggers who won't service it due to its age. If this is true, why? As a rigger, are you not qualified to evaluate the airworthiness of a piece of equipment? So far this has not been a problem, but I don't travel much. I'd hate to end up at a distant DZ and be refused a repack, etc., because of some sort of "older gear" prejudice on the part of someone who was in diapers when I made my first jump, and whose experience with older stuff is dominated by "thought I was gonna die" campfire stories. Thanks, Jon S.