dnewcomer
-
Content
95 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Posts posted by dnewcomer
-
-
QuoteI know there's already a thread about killing sucker trees, but my problem is with yucca plants. I've got them taking over my perennial gardens and they're really pissing me off. I've googled my ass off and have found nothing, but then again I'm lame at googling. I've dug the damn plants out but in no time they're back and procreating. I've thought of poisoning the roots but I'm concerned I'll kill the perennials.
Now that it is spring I'm out to rid them once and for all. Do any of you fine genius people know how to accomplish this?
Thanks for your help.
ROUNDUP.
DN -
Quote"please... Doctors are among the worst groups to advise others on how to live their life."
I'm sorry you feel this way.
You demonstrate a lack of understranding of what is going on in our society when you make that statement. When doctors give conservative advice, they are only trying to help that person avoid serious injury or worse.
Reason: you don't seem to realize most people (including skydivers*) don't take responsibility for their own decisions or actions. Assume a doctor tells someone it is OK to do something, then he goes out and indulges that behavior.....he gets injured, maimed, paralyzed, or killed. What will happen? The person or his family will sue the doctor because "The doctor said it was OK for me to do this. He could have or should have known it was inherently unsafe and told me not to do this behavior. I never thought THAT would happen or I wouldn't have done it. That doctor screwed me."
This happens hundeds of times a day in the U.S. So doctors "bail out" and advise people not to do dangerous behaviors.
People sue doctors anyway whenever the opportunity arises. Case in point: Smokers who have gotten lung cancer have sued their personal physician because, they say, "He didn't tell me I could get lung cancer." Hellooooooooo? Could someone exist in our society and not know this? I doubt it.
*I believe the guy trying to take a video of a helicopter taking off at the WFFC a couple of years ago was told he should not go where he did to get the video. It was designated a restricted area. He got killed. What happened? Family is suing eveyone. Sound familiar?
As a surgeon and frequent reviewer of medical malpractice litigation cases, I am offering this information first-hand. BTW most doctors know very little about skydiving and are in no better position to advise people whether they should indulge in the sport than a next door neighbor. They DO perceive it to be inherently dangerous though. (Duh!
) I would suggest you don't discuss your skydiving activities with your personal physician unless you happen to have a health problem that directly relates to skydiving. Otherwise you are likely to hear from him that "Skydiving may be dangerous to your health."
Sorry for this lengthy, possibly boring post in S&T, but I felt a response was in order.
Dave
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
Post edited for borderline attacks. -
QuoteI had a crash landing today, jump 120....etc.
$0.02 from a low-time jumper:
By the time you reach 500' while under canopy, you should be thinking, "The moment of truth (a planned, safe landing) is about to arrive.....in 15 to 30 seconds, depending upon your canopy's flight characteristics and wingloading." All your attention should be focused on preparing to land softly in an acceptable, safe space without getting in the way of other jumpers. Keep head on a swivel at all times. You shouldn't be thinking about much other than your landing technique at this point until you're on the ground and your canopy collapses behind you.
Other than inappropriate wingloading for skill level, momentary inattention and poor decision-making in the critical last 20 - 30 seconds of the canopy ride contribute more to bad landings and accidents than poor technique. Watch people and you'll agree with this assertion. JMO.
Let's all try to keep safe out there.
Dave
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com -
QuoteInsect flight is very well understood by science at this time.
Irrespective of what science can or cannot prove, obviously anyone who asserts that bumblebees can't fly (1) has never seen one; (2) has seen one and didn't know what it was; (3) is schizophrenic; or (4) is intellectually challenged beyond belief.
Entomologists wouldn't quibble over rudimentary field observations that might peak the curiosity of a physicist.
D-- -
QuoteIf it wasnt for people pushing the envelope, this sport wouldnt be what it is now. Maybe you feel this is a bad thing. I disagree.
?????
I haven't seen any posts saying "Let's stop all progress in skydiving in the interest of safety." That's nonsense. I, for one, am a real advocate of progress. No one is suggesting we never try anything new. "Pushing the envelop" is a necessary part of any activity like sport skydiving, but that can be defined and done in many ways.
What we would all consider experimental jumps need to be made with new/smaller canopies, unproven equipment, safety gear, whatever, but these need to be made under very carefully planned and controlled conditions. I understand canopy manufacturers have special three-canopy harnesses and take other safety precautions to jump gear like this.
I don't think anyone would consider jumping a 21 sqft canopy to be a "conventional" or "normal" jump, even if the jumper never intended to land it......too many unknowns (like how is the canopy going to react with certain toggle input, line twists, torn steering line, line-over, radical spin, etc.). More planning, thought, and preparation needs to go into jumping gear like this compared to conventional gear.
I've heard people say "eventually someone is going to land a wingsuit." OK......I don't jump a wingsuit, but I am open-minded enough to think that could possibly happen. Also I would like to see it happen, but I hope the first time it is tried every conceivable measure has been taken to make the attempt safe.
Let's not let enthusiasm for progress get in the way of good judgement. Jumping experimental gear should not be like a roll of the dice for the life and limb of the user.
Dave -
Quote"For as long as we have the will and the means to fly, we will continue to see injuries and deaths in this sport. We are not the sort of people who stand behind the line; we're the sort who inch up on it, stand on its edge, and (sometimes) cross it. We wouldn't be skydivers if we didn't do that."
Bill,
With 3,800 jumps, 13 yrs in the sport, and nearly 15,000 posts (Whew!), I hold your opinion in very high esteem. But I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. I hope you will give my thoughts on this fair consideration.
IMHO the assertion that people need to be injured or killed in sport skydiving to make performance and technological advances is nonsense......and repugnant. Furthermore by taking the necessary precautions and applying new technologies in the proper forum, "experimental" canopies, containers, systems, materials, or whatever can be introduced safely. Pronouncing these kinds of accidents as "an inevitable part of skydiving so we can progress" just doesn't cut it.
I hope others who intend to try new things will consider every possible contingency (and then some) and prepare appropriately before jumping. I don't think entering a very big number after "Jumps:" in one's skydiver profile necessarily guarantees anyone will be able to cope with whatever happens. Experiments are still experiments subject to unforeseen outcomes and need to be planned very carefully. That has got to be the most important lesson to be taken away from this accident.
My $0.02.
Dave
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com -
QuoteOne thing though... paperwork's a bitch to deal with. It really takes a while to get through it all the first time..........
It wouldn't be anywhere near as difficult to do as the paperwork you'd have to complete if you did a demo under high wind conditions and someone got injured or killed.
Whuffos asked me about the demo into the NASCAR race where several skydivers got hurt for a few weeks after that event. It's not good publicity for the skydiving community when that happens.
Great call to cancel!
D--
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com -
QuoteDave, the citation I listed indicated that at 10,000ft, the O2 level was more than half the max at any depth. It was a bit contradictory as to what happens beyond the 4000m mark on the graph.
That sounds about right. I believe you mean 4,000 feet, not meters. Below ~4,000 feet, levels of dissolved O2 in seawater actually increase slightly. This is thought to be due to the fact that there are few organisms there to extract O2 from the water and cold water can hold more dissolved gas than warm. Therefore any gas that gets below 4,000' will stay there a very long time......millenia actually. Not much can happen to it.
Water at great ocean depths is thought to remain stable for millions of years. I'm not sure there is enough data on the content of dissolved gases in sea water at extreme depths (25,000' - 35,000') to generalize for all locations in all the oceans at all times.
I lied. Pressure at a depth of 25,000' is nearer to 850 atmospheres, not 500 atmospheres. (In any case, I'm not going there soon.)
To recapitulate the point of this S&T thread: from a physician's point of view, skydivers who are smokers or those with chronic lung disease should be extremely careful when jumping from altitudes above 14,000'. Healthy individuals are not at as great a risk for occurrence of an adverse event if they follow recommended precautions. Also avoid smoking within several hours of making a high altitude skydive to purge your lungs of carbon monoxide. (However a few beers the night before should be OK.)
Dave
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com -
QuoteI don't believe it is significantly different than at the surface, and it may even be less because that's an awful long way down for dissolved oxygen to diffuse.
It is significantly different. The oxygen level at great depths (eg. 25,000+ feet) is very low.....far lower than near surface or in atmospheric air. The ocean currents do not exchange sea water that much between the surface and great depths. The reason for this is two fold: (1) colder water sinks and warmer water rises, tending to keep a column of ocean water in place with little top to bottom circulation; (2) water with higher salinity is denser and also sinks.....water near the surface has less saline, therefore tends to remain there. This also limits sea water movement.
The two things that add dissolved O2 to sea water are (1) diffusion from surface (interface with air); and (2) photosynthetic organisms. There is virtually no light at great depths, therefore phytoplankton and photosynthetic bacteria cannot produce O2 as they do within 100 - 200 meters of the surface.
Also sea water at 25,000' is very cold and exerts a crushing ~500 atmospheres of pressure (OK....in limited areas near the oceanic trenches where hot magma is upwelling there are some warm spots). Very little dissolved gas of any kind is present at such depths.
Dave
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com -
QuoteIts a misconception to say there is less oxygen at higher levels...... the lower atmospheric pressure just means that the oxygen is not available to you...
You are right about the fraction of oxygen in the ambient air (atmosphere) at different altitudes up to 56 miles --- it is about the same: 21%. (Above ~56 miles, the fraction of gases in the atmosphere changes. The relative portions of light gases such as oxygen, helium, and hydrogen increase because of their densities compared to nitrogen.) The oxygen is just as available at higher altitudes, but the hemoglobin molecules in your blood have a tougher time attracting them because there are fewer per unit volume of air.* Presumably this is because our bodies didn't evolve in an environment at 1/2 atmospheres of pressure. Consider how this might compare to creatures that live 25,000' under the ocean at crushing pressures --- equal to hundreds of atmospheres? What would the partial pressure of oxygen be at those depths?
*Even though the fraction of oxygen making up the air you breathe does not change at tropospheric altitudes (below 55,000'), air pressure diminishes as altitude above the surface of the Earth increases, so there are fewer oxygen molecules available per unit of space, including the air in the alveoli of your lungs. To complicate matters, your hemoglobin can change its affinity for oxygen depending upon conditons in the blood such as pH and amount of dissolved CO2. (No kidding.) If you ever had general anesthesia, your anesthesiologist had to deal with this every minute you were asleep. Your body's oxygen carrying system is built to help out automatically in emergency situations to carry adequate amounts of oxygen to the tissues.....such as after serious trauma or even while taking a ride to altitude.Quote100% oxygen will also cause you to stop breathing for a while as well...but I'll let some other expert tell you exactly why......
-------------------
Only in rare cases, generally having to do with a long term elevated carbon dioxide level and chronic lung disease.
In normal cases our brain figures out when to breathe based on excess carbon dioxide in the arterial blood. A build up of carbon dioxide triggers respiration. In some people who have elevated carbon dioxide levels over a long period of time (chronic lung disease) the brain switches to a normal back up system called the "hypoxic drive." In these people the brain drives respiration based on low levels of oxygen. For these few people who breathe primarily based on the hypoxic drive, 100 percent oxygen may prevent the level of oxygen in the arterial blood from dropping to the critical threshold, and may depress respiration. It's not a common problem, and should not be a worry for skydivers. Most of us can easily tolerate 100 percent oxygen.
A very good explanation. In normal people, excess CO2 drives their respiration. In individuals with lung disease who are chronic CO2 retainers, low O2 is the driver. Give them excess O2 by mask or nasal cannula and their spontaneous breathing may slow or stop entirely --- nearly ALL of these people are or were smokers, but some medical conditions such as longstanding asthma can cause this problem too.
If you aren't getting enough oxygen for a significant amount of time (several minutes), your brain's intuitive function will suffer. You can't think clearly. You probably won't notice this change early because it is so subtle, and when it becomes more severe, you will eventually lose consciousness. A very dangerous situation.
Bottom line: If you are making a skydive above 14,000' MSL, be aware of these problems. If you have lung disease or are a smoker, you should be very cautious. You can help by not smoking within several hours of going up. Carbon monoxide in tobacco smoke has a high affinity for hemoglobin and blocks the blood's ability to take up oxygen. It would be best to not "smoke and jump" at all. However this should not be a problem when jumping from altitudes up to 14,000' MSL.
All that having been said, consider this. When people first started climbing Mt. Everest (>29,000' MSL), they didn't think it would be possible to reach the summit without supplemental oxygen. Now we know it is possible --- and in fact has been done**. How can that be? It turns out your body adapts to lower atmospheric pressures and low partial pressures of oxygen in the ambient air. But much of that adaptation takes place over an extended period of time.....weeks to months. These changes can be observed in the bodies of people who live in cities at higher elevations such as Denver. Unfortunately your body can't adapt that much on a ride to altitude. But it's still amazing to consider that a human can exert extreme effort (mountain climbing) for extended periods of time at altitudes in excess of 29,000' without supplemental oxygen.
On the other hand, if you went to 29,000' in an unpressurized airplane in 30 minutes or less without supplemental oxygen, you probably wouldn't survive.
Dave
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
**In May, 1978, Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler were the first individuals ever to reach the summit of Mt. Everest without the use of supplemental oxygen. Messner repeated this feat alone in 1980.
Quote........by actually touching these components, by looking at the wear on the attachments, or should I go with the Q-tip method. As I'm writing this, I'm realizing its probably a little of all of those, yeah?
Even if you can't feel or see the burr on your closing pin's loop, you should be able to see the premature wear on the bridle attachment long before it tears. The burr is not likely to cut through on one jump. Great reason to check gear carefully every time you pack --- and look for unexplained or unnecessary wear. (Everywhere.)
Dave
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
Quote......Timing, speed, technique, etc?
Hey, Craig,
You've got hundeds of very experienced people who can give you advice at Perris. But since you're asking, here's my $0.02:
If you want to do all three maneuvers in one skydive, think of them as three separate skydives. Do one maneuver, then take your time getting stable. Second maneuver.....get stable. Then last. Be sure you're stable before you go on to the next maneuver. You should have plenty of time to do this from 13,000'.
The most difficult of these IMO is the barrel roll, so you might be better off doing that one first.
Practice this several times before you go up with S&TA to do the dive. Concentrate on not moving on to the next maneuver until you're completely stable.
After each maneuver, while you're getting stable check your altimeter to be sure you have plenty of time to move on. Never lose altitude awareness.
I'm sure you'll get this down without any problem. Have fun! Keep safe!
Dave
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
Quote"Any tips would be great."
If you pull PC at 3,500' AGL on a Hop & Pop, your canopy should be open before 3,400'. Kewl!!! If you pull PC at 3,500' at terminal, your canopy may not be out by 3,000'. Why is this so?
On a Hop & Pop, the prop wash and forward (horizontal) movement of the plane through the air are what create the air flow that causes your canopy to come out.....not your body's downward motion (as occurs in a normal skydive from altitude). This means your canopy will deploy immediately after you pull PC even though you have barely started going down. Your canopy will be coming out as your body is moving horizontally, not vertically. You're still "at the top of the hill," so to speak.
You'll get a different feel compared to canopy deployment in FF --- you'll feel like the canopy is pulling you backward instead of upward. The opening should also be softer because you're not moving through the air (in any direction) as fast as you would be at terminal, unless the plane is traveling forward at 120 mph.....which is unlikely. (What are you going to be jumping out of?)
For Hop & Pops, I've always found it helpful to concentrate on keeping my head up and keep looking up at the plane while I stay in a relaxed arch as soon as I leave the step if I'm exiting a Cessna. If you're exiting an Otter, face the prop wash with your right foot in the doorway and just make a small hop to the left.....again keeping your head up and watching the plane. That will assure you won't tumble and end up with your bridle coming up between your legs. This is just something that has worked for me and others.....if your instructor doesn't think these suggestions are helpful, follow his advice. I assume you wouldn't be asking for "tips" if you had a clear idea.
In England, it is apparently common for skydivers to do demo jumps (I believe they call them "display" jumps) from a mere 1,000' - 1,500' altitude
.....at least that is what some of my British skydiving friends who moved into my area have told me. This may sound like a base jump to many of us, but if the plane has reasonable forward speed, it is far from a base jump. Apparently the Brits don't think anything of it. (Jumping out of a hot air balloon from 1,000' - 1,500' --- now that's an entirely different thing.)
Hope this info is useful. Have a great H&P!
D--
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
Quote"I realize that exiting an aircraft there is a forward component (often refered to as throw... I think...) that will have an effect on the opening of the canopy..."
When you exit a plane moving foward at 80 - 100 knots, your body continues to move forward at the same speed as the plane (due to inertia) for a very short time, but as soon as you exit, the wind resistance begins slowing your forward motion. If you shoot video, you can observe this effect first hand on film by watching the plane for 5 - 6 seconds after exit. That forward motion for practical purposes stops after a few seconds....maybe 8 - 10. During that time there is also a vertical component to your direction of movement that is the same as if you jumped from a stationary object. The vectors of these two movements combined determine your actual direction of travel through space. After exit, the vertical vector of travel gradually increases as the horizontal vector decreases.
I don't like to call this "throw" because you don't get "thrown forward" by the plane any faster than it's forward speed. "Throw" implies something that isn't happening. You will actually begin to trail the plane as soon as you exit and hit the air stream.
If you pull your PC about one second after exit, you'll have dropped very little in a vertical direction by the time your canopy comes out because the on-rushing wind from your body's forward motion alone (not fall rate) will be enough to activate deployment.
If you jump from a hot air balloon, on the other hand, there is no significant forward motion (no horizontal vector to your direction of travel) -- even if you push off the side of the basket with your feet, for all practical purposes you go straight down. Your body will have to pick up enough speed before PC can release closing pin. This may take a few seconds....maybe 4 or 6 (depending on gear, size of PC, tension on closing loop, etc.). Base jumpers could fill us in better on this. If you're not stable, your bridle could wrap a leg or other body part before your canopy comes out.
Quote"I do recall hearing a story about the first ever civilian C-130 jump where there was a misunderstanding of the "Go" command... and some people left the aircraft while it was still traveling too fast... subsiquently injuring themselves..."
Not sure why that happened. I don't know how fast they think that plane was going, but you can safely exit a plane (without any injury) traveling much faster than a regular jump plane.....two or three times as fast. At the 2004 WFFC, a CASA flew a "high speed pass" by going into a dive right before exit and the pilot told us the exit speed was in excess of 250 knots. Don't know whether this is accurate.....just repeating what the pilot said. I've jumped high speed passes from other CASA's and C-130's traveling at 200+ knots and didn't find it to be that big a deal. I don't understand what happened on that C-130 jump you heard about. Maybe jumpers were attempting a formation exit and people were thrown into each other. It IS definitely possible to do a safe skydive from a plane traveling very fast. Jet pilots have ejected from planes traveling even faster yet in emergencies, but is that really a skydive?
My experience jumping different size Triathlon's has been that the faster my freefall rate is, the faster the deployment sequence occurs. This makes intuitive sense because the only thing pulling your canopy out of the bag is the air stream. Faster air....faster deployment. I believe the manufacturer says my canopy is "made to withstand 130-135 mph airspeed at deployment time." There is probably a margin of error in that number so it might withstand somewhat faster speeds -- but not recommended.
Since your canopy deploys faster at faster fall rates, the difference in distance traveled vertically is probably very little when comparing slower fall rates to faster fall rates. We're talking the difference between perhaps 105 mph and 130 mph (not 50 and 200).
Blues,
Dave
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
QuoteIt will open fast. An airplane in trouble is likely to keep as much speed as possible (speed is lift) to stay flying.
I think this is a good point. Assuming the plane encounters trouble at 1,000' or higher and is able to continue flying horizontally for the time it takes all skydivers to exit, whatever the speed of the plane you will essentially be moving horizontally across the ground at 1,000' altitude for at least a couple of seconds after you exit. (O.K.......you will go down about 32' in two seconds.) The vertical vector of your motion through the air will be minimal during this time......more than enough time to pull main hackey and have the horizontal movement through air activate deployment.
You can prove this to yourself by doing "experimental" hop n' pops at safer altitude (eg. 2,500'). If you exit at 2,500', pull main hackey as soon as you're clear of plane (one or two seconds), you should be under canopy by 2,300', possibly higher.
If you think you would be tumbling head-over-heels or otherwise be unstable after an emergency exit, you'd probably be better off going for silver so your pilot chute clears well and doesn't wrap around your legs.
On the other hand, if you're doing a balloon jump (floating on the relative wind) and a plane accidentally crashes into ballon envelop when you're at ~1,200' altitude, you'd better go for silver right away -- there wouldn't be enough air for the pilot chute to pull the closing pin until your fall rate picks up. How low would that be? I don't know.......maybe 300' - 500'. Probably too low, I think.
I really enjoyed reading everyone's opinion on this subject.
D--
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
I would like to hear some experienced jumpers' opinions regarding the following issue:
We all keep our seat belts fastened up to 1,000' AGL during A/C climbout. If an emergency arises up to 1,000', we would ride the plane down. If an emergency arose after that time, and the pilot told everyone to exit between 1,000' and 1,500' AGL, what would you do? Would you go for reserve or main?
If you'd pull reserve up to 1,500', what altitude would you pull main? (Presumably your designated hard ceiling.)
I have never been at a DZ where this situation arose.
Just curious about opinions on this. It seems to rarely come up for discussion.
D--
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
QuoteI thought you were only covered by them if you are red cross certified.
Not so. You are protected no matter what your knowledge. These laws were passed to discourage people from avoiding the chance to help accident victims for fear of being sued.
More about cricothyroidotomies (CTDY): we may be talking about different things. I was talkiing about a "surgical cricothyroidotomy" in my post, not the procedure where a narrow tube with a sharp trocar is used to pierce the cricothyroid membrane, then the trocar is removed leaving the plastic tube for an airway. That is a safer, easier procedure to gain access to the airway in an emergency --- especially in the field. Some people have actually used large bore needles (#14) to do this, but it would be very difficult to ventilate a person through a #14 needle. You can however administer Oxyg.
I don't think it is necessary to go into lengthy discourse here about airways in trauma victims, but a CTDY is not necessarily the "holy grail" of airway management in injured people wearing full face helmets. If you can't ventilate the pt. through the CTDY and there is no obstruction between the glottis and the upper trachea in the frist place, a CTDY would be little help.
These patients frequently have ventilatory problems from aspiration of blood or regurgitated stomach contents. Sucking out the mouth and upper airway is more likely to help them breathe than anything --- if something as simple as an ear syringe or bulb syringe is available to do the job. We added one to the first aid kit at our DZ a couple of years ago.....after we needed one. Even without the syringe, our seriously injured jumper with a marginal airway survived.
D--
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
Quote"I dont know if centrifugal force can be strong enough to prevent you from bringing your arms in....."
I doubt it. An ice skater in a "scratch spin" is going around much faster than a skydiver in freefall. Even in a rapid, uncontrollable spin you should be able to pull your arms in.
Check out: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1246600;#1246600.
D--
QuoteCountersteering is how you stop a fast spin unless the laws of physics have been amended for the state of CA.
M--
High speed, uncontrolled spins have been the subject of lengthy discussions by numerous skydivers with many thousands of jumps on dropzone.com over the years. They have gotten into theories about "Conservation of Angular Momentum" and assorted opinions as to the cause of a violent spin in the first place.
I believe you already mentioned you've never been in an unintentional spin. If that is the case, it is going to be very difficult for you to relate to someone who has.
I'm a low-time jumper, so I vividly remember a lot of things that happened when I made my first 10-15 jumps. (It wasn't that long ago.) Apologies to people with 2,000+ jumps, but it has been my experience that few people with many thousands of jumps are able to remember what it was like to struggle with stability in FF when they started skydiving if they ever struggled at all. Besides....some people are more "natural" skydivers, roller-bladers, rock climbers, water skiers, kayakers, or whatever than others.
On one of those early jumps, I got into a very high-speed spin.....probably on the order of 3 or 4 rotations per second. Didn't panic, but it was frustrating -- seemed like the harder I tried to relax/arch/check extremities for symmetry/etc. the worse it got. Rode it down to about 5,000', then dumped (very dizzy) with numerous line twists but was able to undo them in ample time to land main. When I got on the ground I asked the instructor who was jumping with me if he ever saw anyone in an uncontrolled spin like that. He said, "Not that fast."
Although I agree that tracking or countersteering are solutions to the problem, IMHO it is almost impossible for a beginning jumper to track out of a rapid, uncontrolled spin. When you are going around sooooo fast, you lose orientation and proprioceptive function. Let's face it, we have all seen skydivers with 1,000 or more jumps who can barely track out of a 4-way.
My twist on rapid spins (Heh! Heh! -- a little twisted humor there) from personal experience, watching others, and subsequent experimentation: once you start rotating very rapidly, your upper body tends to bend involuntarily on a vertical axis in the direction of the spin and actually makes it worse. Something as simple as clicking your heels together to see if a leg is down, let alone tracking, becomes very difficult if not impossible. You have to experience this kind of rapid spin to appreciate what I am saying. Spinning uncontrollably at 1 or 2 rotations/sec. is not extreme enough.
Since that time, I have intentionally induced a very rapid spin and the easiest way to stop it is pull extremities in for 2 or 3 seconds, then open up in a relaxed arch. You will not go into a faster spin because of conservation of angular momentum (like an ice skater in a "scratch spin") as some people have suggested in this forum in the past.....I tried it and it just doesn't happen. (If anyone has any ideas why that is so, I would be interested in hearing them.) Pulling everything in takes away the cause of the spin: some unrecognized assymetry of the body, whatever it may be. This action also seems to be something that anyone can do....even an inexperienced skydiver in a violent, uncontrolled spin.
I am sure more experienced jumpers, AFF instructors, coaches, S&TA's, etc. will check in and opine at length upon this subject. There is a great diversity of opinions about uncontrolled spinning.
My $0.02...................free.
D--
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
Quote......I think I'd prefer a cricothyrotomy to possible spinal cord damage. Of course its six of one, half dozen of the other if nobody's around with adequate training/equipment.
linz
(Underlining by me for emphasis.)
Not sure what you mean by "adequate training?"
How many cricothyrotomies have you done? How many have you done on an unconscious person laying in a field wearing a full face helmet? I would not want this procedure to be done on me in this setting except by an experienced trauma surgeon. Too rmany possible complications at least as serious as a C-spine injury. No point in going into them here.
I believe most other trauma surgeons would agree with me on this. A cricothyr. can be a tricky procedure in a trauma patient even in an emergency room with plenty of lighting, assistance, and all the surgical equipment you need.
If you're an experienced trauma surgeon, I flatly disagree with you on this one --- I've had to do too many emergency cricos. Your opinion sounds like a case of "A little bit of knowledge........" No offense intended, so I hope none taken.
D--
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
QuoteI hope I can learn through others mistakes so when I get my chance, I will decide correctly.
You are very wise.
"Highly intelligent people learn from the mistakes of others. Stupid people need to make their own."
--Anonymous
D--
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
QuoteTry to pull it off and risk a different kind of cord damage? We didn't come up with a good answer, but it's a question worth considering before it happens. -bill von
B--
This is a "trick box" question. I didn't have time to read all the posts in reply, so I apologize if this information has already been offered.
If someone wearing a full-face helmet has questionably adequate airway after an accident, the answer is do not remove the helmet but watch closely and wait. If the person continues shallow breathing but is obviously moving air and skin/lip color remains good (pink), leave it up to the paramedics or other trained personnel when they arrive on the scene to remove the helmet.
If on the other hand the person's respiratory rate gets very high (>40/min.) or low (<6/min.) and skin/lip/nail bed color begins to turn blue, conditions are deteriorating. It would probably be safer to remove the helmet to establish a good airway. If you have no idea what to do to gain a good airway even with the helmet off, you'd probably be better off leaving things as they are.
Unfortunately there are numerous injuries (tension pneumothorax or cardiac tamponade, for example) other than a blocked airway that can cause someone to turn blue after a serious landing accident. Without special equipment (such as would be available to a paramedic), there is little that can be done in the field to "fix" those types of injuries. So it helps to be fairly sure the hypoxia is due to an airway problem.
Bottom line: if a person is going to die shortly after an accident due to suffocation from lack of an adequate airway, top priority would be to establish a good airway even at the risk of aggravating a C-spine fracture. You're just as dead with or without the C-spine fracture if you can't breath. You wouldn't want to say after the fact, "Well he may have suffocated to death, but at least we didn't make his C-spine fracture worse before he died." Duh! This is convoluted thinking.
Thanks to "Good Samaritan" laws in most states, you will never get sued for causing inadvertent injury if you try your best in an emergency situation to save someone given your level of knowledge.
D--
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
QuoteSince I have contacts, should I just be wearing only goggles, or can I still wear sunglasses?
If you ever jump with "just sunglasses" (no goggles over the sungl.), be sure the lenses are tight in the frames. I had a lense blow out of glasses while in FF once.........landed OK, but depth perception wasn't great.
D--
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com
Quote"Lots of experienced skydivers told me for a long time 'don't worry you'll quickly get used to/will grow in to the canopy.' Well it was just plain wrong."
OK.....you got some questionable advice. Up-sizing your canopy is a smart move.
My $0.02 about difficulties flaring/landing: no matter what the conditions, a bad landing is almost always due to FLARING TOO LOW or an INADEQUATE FLARE. An INADEQUATE FLARE may mean (1) not flaring rapidly enough or (2) you're not pulling your toggles down far enough (not having enough amplitude to your flare). An adequate flare is what will change your canopy's flight path from a glide slope of maybe 2:1 or 3:1 to horizontal to the ground. I find I have to make slight changes in the way I flare as conditions change (landing elevation, air temp, etc.).
When you get your new canopy, if you are still having problems landing softly the best way to see what you are doing wrong is get a video of a few of your landings and go over it with an experienced canopy pilot....or instructor....or coach....or S&TA....or CReW dog....etc. When you see clearly on the video what you are actually doing, it usually turns out to be something totally different from what you thought you were doing.
I am 5'6" tall, weigh 138 lbs, and have short arms. When I flared a 280 sq ft Manta as a student (~0.6 wing-loading), nothing happened. Someone told me to grip the control lines above the toggle loops or wrap the toggles around my hand a couple of times and flare faster. It worked! (I am not recommending this technique, only mentioning it to show how one person solved an apparent flaring problem under one set of circumstances.)
It would be unfortunate if you gave up sport skydiving because of your difficult landings. Soft landings can be one of the most gratifying and enjoyable parts of the skydiving experience. Some day you'll look back on these experiences and wonder why you had any problem landing softly at all.
Dave
DAVE DeWOLF HOSPITALIZED
in The Bonfire
MR. DAVID DeWOLF, patient
Lancaster General Hospital
555 N. Duke St.
Lancaster, PA 17604-3555
Dave would appreciate your cards and prayers. I will update info on his condition & progress as available.
God speed, Dave!!
DN