skydived19006

Tom, The likelihood of me pursuing a new BSR are remote. I do understand the process, have moved through a couple of [FB] waivers, one of which was written into the SIM as a permanent change. I witnessed an instructor turning back to back Otter loads at a boogie some time ago, can't even remember which guy it was. Someone was meeting him with a rig and geared student. If ever I witness that again, I'll take it upon myself to approach the instructor for a chat regarding manufacturer expectations. I'll also relate my understanding that this gear check is mandatory with the manufacturer/USPA potentially grounding the TI, etc. As I understand, that's the extent of my authority, but if that conversation is not taken to heart, I'll not hesitate to pass the information up the food chain. I check the drogue immediately before exit to see that the handle is available but more so to see that it hasn't been dislodged and is fully set in the BOC. I've seen a drogue "self deploy", not ideal at all. Martin Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

I won't argue your logic. But it does beg to reason that a handle check after deployment is at a minimum as important as the freefall check. So now please explain to me why no manufacturer, nor USPA has ever required a handle check once under a main canopy? "There is really no case to be made AGAINST them... and since it can only increase safety, I can't see why any current instructor wouldn't want to do them." Not to imply that you would argue against these additional checks, or that you even do them on every tandem. I do a drogue check within the last second of leaving the airplane. Why not mandate that check as well. We should all be doing a handle check in the airplane immediately after connecting the student, that one should be mandated as well. "There is really no case to be made AGAINST them... and since it can only increase safety, I can't see why any current instructor wouldn't want to do them." I've witnessed instructors pick up a tandem rig and throw it on without a gear check. I personally believe that it should be a requirement that we do a gear check, handles, three ring/closing loop, etc. This too should be mandated in the BSRs. "There is really no case to be made AGAINST them... and since it can only increase safety, I can't see why any current instructor wouldn't want to do them." I'll admit to being a bit of a Devils Advocate/Troll/Asshole if you will, but the logic does follow. Have a nice day. Martin Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

I thought that I'd bring this one back to the top. Mike had his first drogue half hitch last weekend. He was running hand cam, so had the opportunity to review his drogue deployment. He was very stable belly to earth and put the drogue out into clean air. I think that it was just a bit rushed, and may not have been out to full arm extension. A deliberate, full arm extension deployment should reduce or eliminate this problem. My opinion, if the drogue bridle has had time to fully extend, you won't be tossing into a tangle of bridle. Doesn't take a "hesitation" just get the thing out to full arm extension and be deliberate about it. He had a clean main deployment, though it was fairly slow to extract the bag from the container. Attached picts for your education and enjoyment. Edit: I just noticed that this thread predates the Tandem specific thread. Maybe a Moderator will move the whole thing over to Tandem? Martin Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

Thanks Tom. I said early on in the thread that I'd comply with this BSR, not that you indicated otherwise. I've always deployed at or above 6,000' agl, rarely intentionally going to 5,500' agl. I do that for multiple reasons, trading 6 seconds of free fall for a minute of canopy, more time to work with line twists, etc. Also, I had that buffer in there for things like a hand in the way or a handle, or for some reason I couldn't find a handle. So theoretically, I've been doing those handle checks all along starting at 6,000'. I just happened to pull the first one if I happened to find it where my hand expected it! "Theory and reality are the same... In theory." Somewhat off topic, my rigs still have real rip cords on the drogue releases (right, left, and one on the cut-away handle). I had one, and another instructor had one where after pulling one rip cord, the drogue didn't release (most likely mis rigged). On the one I had, I was running hand cam. The time between drogue release #1 and drogue release #2 was approximately one second. I'll paraphrase Bill Booth "Every time we do something to increase safety in the sport, skydivers do something to negate the improvement." http://www.dropzone.com/safety/Gear_and_Equipment/Do_Skydivers_Care_About_Safety_19.html Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

I totally agree that handle checks for tandem are a good idea, and do them a bunch on every jump. I've simply not been doing them in drogue fall. I could stop doing the ones that make real logic and safety enhancing sense, like checking that the drogue is well seated in the BOC just before exit (that should be a BSR before the drogue fall check). So, you make a good argument for handle checks, but none as to why specifically the one conducted in freefall is the one that's "important", and since it was added to the BSRs, it must be the preeminent handle check above and beyond, and potentially supplanting all others. I don't want rote responses, I want to understand the reasoning and argument that went into this rule change. I did email Jim Crouch this morning asking him. I'll pass along his response. I'll go back and send it to the S&T Chair as well. Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

That was covered in another thread specifically about that malfunction. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4543704;#4543704 Or just a fast acting RSL? I couldn't tell either. Nice screen grab, BTW.Thanks. Boy, that sure looked like bad packing to me, but I'm no expert. Sometimes $hit does happen, and that was $HIT! I noticed you stayed with it for a while. Were you pumping the toggles a couple of times? I think that it was a fast acting RSL. I analyzed that shot as well. In my mind, I know that I pulled the handles in order, but was questioning that due to the moment you (skydiverek) grabbed. Eventually, I concluded that since the camera was on my left hand, and that hand had not yet moved, it was proof that I'd pulled in order. Watch it again, and you'll see my left arm extends with the reserve pull, about a second after you see the reserve PC. Yes, I'd agree that it was a packing error. Yes, I did stay with it almost 20 seconds after making the decision to get rid of it. I did initially grab risers, but when it "took off" I immediately decided to chop it. With the spin, being thrown around, and the student harness riser, I could not see the cut away handle. The thought that it could be tucked under occurred to me, but it wasn't, I just could not get a line of sight on it. Obviously, pulling that handle was critical! In the end, I could not say if I saw it, or found it by feel. Edit to add: And free fall handle checks wouldn't have done a damn bit of good under that malfunction. It could easily be argued that handle checks while under a canopy would have helped, especially if they're conducted eyes closed, or looking away. I think that checking handles again while under canopy would be more useful than the drogue fall check. Maybe that'll be the next BSR down the pike. Now, back to the topic at hand. What's the base reasoning behind the freefall handle checks? Nobody has yet to tread those waters. And is "Because the manufacturers require it." Then, what's the base reasoning to why the manufacturers require a freefall handle check? It seems like it should be such a simple question to answer, there seems to be no debate that we should be doing these "system handle checks". Are we all simply lemmings, or is there a real honest modern gear reason???? Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

You can get a cool shot of the deployed drogue when you check the reserve handle Well shit! I never even considered using the handle checks as an alternative prospective. Theoretically, a guy could simply bring the camera in for an "armpit drogue shot" and back. Handle's check, check! Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

But ironically you'll have 10,000 checks in a harness that's not suspended under a canopy, with something way less than that while suspended. In my experience that muscle memory will lead you to look in the wrong location for those handles. I was in a fairly "wild" spinning mal and spent in excess of 15 seconds locating handles. Twisted, spinning, offset load, arms and clothing in the way, a direct line of sight isn't always available. Not really a problem as it turns out since we were high, and I deploy higher than required. I generally do one just after putting the rig on, one while walking to the airplane, one when I get up and before hookup, one after hook up, one in the door, though at that typically just the drogue, but have never been in the habit of doing a handle check in freefall since my handles are all sewn to the main container harness. I was certified on Eclipse tandem gear in 1999. Eclipse had both handles on the main harness from day one, and at that time the other guys still had handles that were attached to the student harness. Eclipse had/has right and left side drogue releases, when at least one of the other guys had/has only one and it could be found floating. On that rig, a handle check was no doubt a hell of a good idea at that time! My point is that we're requiring a handle check because handles used to have the potential to float. When in reality something else would be more useful. I have no doubt that the reason for requiring a handle check in freefall was discussed, I have to wonder if it went any further than "The manufacturers require it, we should add it to the BSRs. Next topic." Martin Edit to add: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3ENMl4R2b0 Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

I won't argue with that logic! Why not go with the FAA's definition as they define it with regard to demonstration jumps? "A hook turn is a maneuver in any maneuver sequence that causes the canopy to roll at an angle in excess of 45 degrees from vertical and/or to pitch up or down at an angle in excess of 45 degrees from horizontal while executing a turn in excess of 60 degrees." Maybe the answer to that is that it's easier to quantify a turn in excess of 90 degrees than to measure roll angle from the vertical or horizontal. I'm going to see how hard I can get a tandem to turn in 90 degrees next weekend! Though well in excess of 500' AGL. I'd be willing to bet that it'll go better than 45 degrees pitch angle. Martin Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

I have no real problem with it. I just happen to be one of those ass holes who feels the need to understand the reasoning and/or logic. I totally get it with the old floating handle issue. I understand that the rule indicates "immediately...", I've been complying all along by doing a handle check above 6,000', and if the first one is there, I pull it at or just above 6,000'. If the first one isn't there, I'd check the 2nd, etc. Somehow, I'm guessing that my current/former system will not be found to comply with this new BSR. Riddle me this Batman! Does the same logic for freefall checks, whatever that is, not apply or remain once the main is open??? In my experience the muscle memory that is built with the pre-loading, in airplane, and free fall checks will lead a Tandem Pilot In Command to first look/feel/reach for handles where they were in freefall, as opposed to where they are once suspended under a canopy, and especially if that canopy is spinning. Martin Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

I'll start by saying that I know that most if not all of the tandem system manufacturers have required handle checks since day one. My understanding is that with the original systems and the potential for floating release handles, that handle checks were really pretty important. In today's world, other than just maintaining the status quo, what is the standard argument for requiring handle checks in free fall. Depending on the reasoning, why not require handle checks once under canopy? I can come up with more logical reasoning for requiring a handle check once the main is open than I can for the freefall checks. I'm not saying at all that I won't do it, I will and I'll require that our staff also comply. I have always done handle checks within 5 seconds of drogue deployment, though that was and will be 5 seconds before drogue deployment while still on the aircraft. Martin Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

They no doubt took a huge finical hit last year with the low turn out and dismal weather. I was told once years ago that the whole thing was a break even deal, with the tandem concession being the only thing that had positive cash flow. I don't know that this is 100% true, but sounds about right. Yes, a huge effort to make that thing happen. It was a good run at over 30 years! Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

I heard from a friend (hearsay) that the Labor Day Weekend Couch Freaks boogie at Fort Dodge has been confirmed to be dead. Not happening in 2015. Anyone have real information, connections deep within the organization, etc?? Edit to add: I sent an email, got this back "I cannot say that it is done for good, but we are not having it this year." That boogie kind of peeked in the 90s. 2014 was dismal turn out, but it rained most of the weekend as well. It's a huge effort for that club to put on this boogie! I appreciate all the work for all the years, and all the good times had. Martin Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

I see it as making an irrevocable decision for someone when they very well may at the point that they would have the knowledge and understanding may very well have made another choice. Were I given the choice, I'd have chosen differently. I honestly believe that in the future circumcision will be looked upon as we look at Chinese foot binding, or elective (elected by the man in order to settle his unruly wife down) frontal lobotomies now. Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

But it's fine to pierce their child's ears if it'll help them to: -be made fun of at school -be "different" -look like Dad and his brothers" Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

Items # 2, 3, and 5 all translate and combine down to "cute". Call it fashion, social norm, whatever you like. Regardless the adjective you use, it's about appearance. As with the majority of women (not all!) fashion over function every time! There was a time in a part of this world that the attached pic would have been done in for "cute" as well. I'd guess that the arguments for foot binding could be used for circumcision. Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

Deal! I've had the same thoughts regarding some of your posts, always well thought out and intelligent. Martin Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

[rant] It's absolutely pitiful in general how much time and energy is spent on non-consequential bull shit in this country! Look at how much media attention a few under inflated footballs gets, and the constant obsession with celebrity marriages and children. So many people can list off a bunch of celebrity couplings, but don't have a clue what the three branches of our Federal government are, let alone the purview of each. Likewise, the decision as to whether to mutilate their infant son is typically taken as an afterthought. "What? Yeah, sure whatever you think I guess. Cut it off. Now, can I get back to next weeks Fantasy Football lineup for Gods Sake!?!?" [/rant] Edit to add: Nothing really new though. This exchange from a 1963 movie addresses the subject fairly well. J. Algernon Hawthorne: I must say, if I had the grievous misfortune to be a citizen of this benighted country, I should be the most hesitant at offering any criticism whatever of any other. J. Russell Finch: Wait a minute, are you knocking this country? Are you saying something against America? J. Algernon Hawthorne: Against it? I should be positively astounded to hear of anything that could be said FOR it. Why, the whole bloody place is the most unspeakable matriarchy in the whole history of civilization! Look at yourself, and the way your wife and her strumpet of a mother push you through the hoop! As far as I can see, American men have been totally emasculated. They're like slaves! They die like flies from coronary thrombosis, while their women sit under hairdryers, eating chocolates and arranging for every second Tuesday to be some sort of Mother's Day! And this positively infantile preoccupation with bosoms. In all my time in this wretched Godforsaken country, the one thing that has appalled me most of all is this this preposterous preoccupation with bosoms. Don't you realize they have become the dominant theme in American culture: in literature, advertising and all fields of entertainment and everything. I'll wager you anything you like that if American women stopped wearing brassieres, your whole national economy would collapse overnight. Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

What I find ironic about the "same as dad" logic is that even if everyone has the same foreskin trait, they still don't look the same. And typically, I'd imagine that taking showers with Dad isn't happening anymore by the time that the boy's manhood is anywhere near manly. Again, just another stupid argument for "it's cute that way." Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

Is not the top answer for justification among those who have spent less than a couple of minutes to educate themselves on the subject that of aesthetics? They're making a decision regarding their childs genetaila on "cute". Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

It seems to be a simple statement of fact. Remove a very large percentage of the nerve endings and you will reduce sensitivity. You obviously don't understand science! (I love using that statement, though it's more fun when trying to push a point that has zero basis in science.) I turn 50 in a few days, and I can say for fact that at times, I could use that sensitivity when engaging in penis/vagina relations. Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

The foreskin is fused to the glans of the penis until sometime around the age of 2. That is unless the doctor physically rips it off just before cutting the foreskin. We have two sons, and their genatils are entact. I did enough research at the time to understand the arguments both ways, and it's really no argument at all. It's genatal mutalation for cosmetic purposes. I see a particular irony in it that women tend to be the pushers. Circumcision without argument desensitizes the penis. It does therefore make it more difficult to attain the necessary friction. So, what do we do when we aren't as content as we might be otherwise with penis/vagina sex? We look for other avenues such as oral and anal. So, all these mothers out there who think that a circumcised penis is cute are in a round-about way increasing the chances that their daughters will end up with some guy who's pressuring her into ass fucking in part because his mommy thought that his unit would be cute if that unsightly skin were removed. I agree with the analogy regarding labia minora. Why are women not out campaigning for labiaplasty in adult women for the aesthetics??? Have a nice day! Maritn Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ

I didn't even see that issue because I've been using the 2-second photo rate. Another issue with my AZ1 in time-lapse photo mode is the LED Recording indicator doesn't light up while it's shooting pictures. There's a tiny red LED flashing on the back side, but not the one on top. How about the Sony shooting video with a GoPro for stills? Might be an interesting glove configuration. Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ