skydived19006

brianmoler

Why was the reserve deployed before the canopy was cutaway?

That was covered in another thread specifically about that malfunction.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4543704;#4543704

skydived19006

******Did you pull the reserve prior to cutting away? (attached).

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????

DougH

***One of my favorite reason for outside video, see me doing my handle checks.
My thoughts are this is for all the Youtube handycam videos out there.
One-handed almost the entire jump. :(

I agree with both new tandem BSR's.

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!

riggerrob

Good point!
When training new TIs, I insist on 4 separate handles checks: the first handles check before they board the airplane, the second handles check after hook-up, the third handles check shortly after drogue deployment and the last handles check after opening.
As for the logic ... initially we did handles checks because of the risk of floating handles (dislodged during exit), but soon found that repeated handles checks helped build muscle memory. The more times (per jump) you do handles checks, the sooner you complete the ten thousand repetitions needed to burn handles checks into long-term memory.

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

pchapman

Interesting to see that those new USPA BSR's pretty much mirror a couple of those Tandem Commandments, which are considered generally good practice. The actual wording isn't exactly the same though.

But I've never quite understood the antagonism against greater than 90 degree turns.

A turn of 180 degrees can be a slow, gradual turn, and doesn't imply a "hook" turn or "steep diving turn", or a lack of any straight final approach. (Where a straight final of some seconds provides an allowance for error in judgement during the turn.)

It makes it sound like a gradual turn of 180 and a long final is more dangerous than a low 90 hook...

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

justme12001

I'm a little OCD when it comes to handle checks, i usually do 4/5 in the last minute or so leading up to exit, one in the door, one right after the drogue, and if outside video is there and wasn't close enough to see the first one, i will do another just so it's on video.

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

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

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!

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

billvon

>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"

Never claimed that.

Look, I would never tell you what to do with your kids in this way. We just have different opinions on it.

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.

billvon

>Items # 2, 3, and 5 all translate and combine down to "cute."

That may be your experience. In my experience, a parent who acts to help his child through the many problems involved with growing up is acting very differently than a parent who (for example) pierces their children's ears because they "look cute." (And I _have_ heard that from parents.)

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"

billvon

> They're making a decision regarding their childs genetaila on "cute".

OK, perhaps that's your experience. When I've spoken to other parents about it their responses have been:

-religious reasons
-didn't want him to be made fun of in the locker room
-didn't want him to be "different"
-worries about cleaning
-"it's easier if he looks like Dad and his brothers"

I have never heard a parent say "because it's cute."

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.

JerryBaumchen

Hi Martin,



Perfect!!!! I owe you a beer; hope we can meet someday so you can collect,

Jerry Baumchen

Deal!
I've had the same thoughts regarding some of your posts, always well thought out and intelligent.


Martin

Bolas

Forget all the medical jargon. "Warning: Circumcision can lead to kinkiness." That'll stop the majority of them cold.

So all my exhibitionist thong wearing was because I was circumcised. Sure glad to learn it's not my fault.

[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.

normiss

My experience has been the parents seem to want to make the kids the same as dad. We don't want them feeling ostracized because they're different.

Although I do know a number of moms have not had their boys cut due to not having insurance and it was too expensive.

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."

billvon

>So, all these mothers out there who think that a circumcised penis is cute

Never met a woman who thought that about their child.

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".

normiss

There seems to be a trend of the uncircumcised fellers telling us cut boys that we're desensitized down there.
Don't believe that for a second.

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.

amstalder

I just wanted to point this out for anyone with little experience caring for an uncircumcised boy. The foreskin should NEVER be retracted for cleaning before it does so on its own (sometime between 2 and the end of puberty). Until that time, it is fused to the head of the penis.

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

parachutist

***Ok UPDATE!

I`m quite pissed, the AZ1 is _useless_ for dual use.
I bought two an tested, first impression was great, for video use it`s really nice, remote works better than gopro etc... But when it comes to photo mode, Sony... argh... 11,9 mpixel works in single shot mode but when it comes to simple "1 pic per second" mode the AZ1 reduces the quality to HD (2mpixel)... No chance of changing this!
As video device really nice, two cams in vid/photo config - forgett it...

I asked at Sony and there is no update likely to be released to change this... why not? Because the more expensive AS200,which is supposed to be released in march is obviously able to.... thx sony...

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.

chuckakers

We're running a program at Skydive Spaceland that is doing great things in retention. We call it the "Transitions" program and it is available to any licensed jumpers from any DZ with 100 or fewer jumps.

Each weekend we offer our noobs mentors that they can jump with 1 on 1 or in small groups at no extra cost. The mentors are all coach rated or better and jump with a camera for more effective bebriefs. Also, one weekend each month we host a "Transitions" event, with mentored jumps focusing on a specific skill area like flying the hill, launching exits, tracking improvement, etc. These events are also offered at no extra charge. The DZ picks up the tab for the mentors jumps and the mentors volunteer their efforts.

The program has been a supreme success. Spaceland graduates an enormous amount of students and we saw too many folks fading away after graduation. The Transitions program has done a great job keeping the noobs engaged and excited about each visit to the DZ and the formal training is producing terrific skill improvement for them. These jumps are augmented with fun jumps with load organizers or with others to help the young folks feel like they are part of the experience jumper base.

I know many DZ's aren't able to offer slots for such a program, but there's also a fantastic retention method I've been using for years - our time. I have found that young jumpers have a million questions that they don't ask or maybe don't know to ask. I try to spend as much time with our young jumpers as I can, and host impromptu seminars on every topic imaginable. Just last weekend I missed jumping with the Mayor of Houston because I was tucked away in the snack bar discussing aircraft weight and balance and the role of the fun jumper in aircraft emergencies and didn't hear the calls. As it turned out I had more fun anyway.

By far the best retention method I've ever seen in skydiving is making people feel included and safe. We try to get and keep our newly licensed jumpers engaged and draw them into the social side of our community as quickly as possible after graduation. I have found that new jumpers are nervous about jumping in what they perceive as an unsupervised environment, and socially many of them feel intimidated interacting with the more experienced jumpers. We figure it's up to us to break that ice and help them get over the "noobie" hump.

When a guy with 5,000 jumps approaches a noob and invites them on a skydive it makes their day. They just don't realize it makes our day too.

That's awesome!

peek

***This rule states specifically...

Perhaps we don't need that part of the BSR at all. Perhaps this alone takes care of it:

"1. General [E]
a. All student training programs must be conducted
under the direction and oversight of an appropriately
rated USPA Instructor until the student is
issued a USPA A license."

"direction and oversight" is a powerful phrase, and means a lot. It means the Instructor is going to tell them how to do it, and is going to check to make sure that it is done.

We may currently be relying too much on the historical interpretations of Instructor (teacher) and Jumpmaster (supervisor on jump), (which effectively is now a Coach).

All we really need to do is to insure that students are trained well, and that can be done in a wide variety of situations.

I hope we get comments from some other people.

I'll take a little time tomorrow and send a proposal to the S&T committee for exactly that change Gary. Good idea!

topdocker

You guys make me want to chuck my gear in the truck this Summer and finish my Jumpmaster rating that I started in 1988. AFF may have taken hold in most places, but I still feel SL offers a better all-around program for students.

I'm glad to see people care about it enough to not only keep it around, but improve it.

Thanks!
top

Craig,
If you'd take a trip out here to Fly Over Land, you'd see that static line and IAD are alive and well!

My opinion is that these decisions, like most decisions, are driven by economics. I don't believe that it's economical or good use or resources to send up 182 loads with one student. As it's not economical to loiter a Twin Otter over the DZ for multiple passes 4 minutes apart putting out static line students.

On top of that, many small DZs would be very hard pressed to maintain enough AFF staff to make it workable.

In the meantime Top, you could just have one of your buddies hang onto your PC (IAD) as you leave the airplane just for the fun of it!

peek

***I see it as ironic that Coaches have the authority to [teach] an FJC, [except the method specific exit], but can't [teach] the ground training for the jumps that they'll supervise. This rule has an "E" waiverability, I wonder if anyone has bothered to submit the paperwork.

I don't recall if anyone has requested a waiver to this.

In general, if enough people contact the USPA Safety and Training committee about ironies, inconsistencies, and other issues with the way things are specified in the SIM, they might change it, or clarify it.

Of course all instruction that a Coach does is supposed to be under some kind of supervision of an Instructor, but that supervision varies a lot.

This rule states specifically "All ground training must be conducted by an instructor in that student’s training method,..." I would think that changing "must be conducted by" to "must be conducted under the supervision of an instructor..." would be a realistic and workable solution. I do agree that the level of supervision varies a whole lot. In reality I'd guess that most of the supervision that Coaches get amounts to answering any questions the Coach may have. Otherwise, at least once he's proven to be competent, he's pretty much doing his thing with casual oversight.

How about one of these!?
"must be conducted under the casual supervision..."
"must be conducted under the perfunctory supervision..."
"must be conducted under the cursory supervision..."

sammielu

My understanding from the SIM is that coaches can supervise the in air portion of all skydives after the clear and pull, but an instructor must conduct the ground training until students are cleared for self supervision (I believe this is the language used in the SIM).

(5) All ground training must be conducted by an
instructor in that student’s training method,
until demonstrating stability and heading
control prior to and within five seconds after
initiating two intentional disorienting maneuvers
involving a back-to-earth presentation.

You're correct sammielu. Though when this rule was first changed, the Coaches were to be given instruction on a couple of things covered earlier in the progression, then they were to ground train as well, at least that's what I recall. That additional training was a condition required of me while operating under the waiver. In practicality, I'd guess that the vast majority of the ground training is also being conducted by the Coach.

I see it as ironic that Coaches have the authority to run an FJC, save the exit, but can't run the ground training for the jumps that they'll supervise. This rule has an "E" waiverability, I wonder if anyone has bothered to submit the paperwork. Gary Peek might know, and if not could sure find out.

Jen Sharp generally runs the Coach Courses for our people. I'd just bet that she would be willing to cover some of the earlier category stuff for the IAD/SL guys round these parts in her courses. Originally, the Coaches were to be given additional training once they'd completed their rating.

It would be nice for the rule to more aligned with practicality and reality in this instance.

Here's a thread regarding the waiver from 2006. I should have spent a little more time editing and spell checking, but typical of me.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2088205;search_string=coach%20waiver;#2088205

Martin

linebckr83

***And who / how old are the youngest and oldest?

I'm sure there are plenty younger than me, But I'm 26 and starting doing tandems at 23. Some 500 +/- in that time. The others at the dz are upper 40's and I'll tell ya what, I don't know where they get their energy.

By this spring Mike, two of the four of us will be over 50.

It's not so much the tandems that wear me out. By Monday, I feel pretty much the same if I'd done 6 or 16 tandems over the weekend. It was still two 14 hour days, often in 100 plus heat. Doing the DZO bit, as soon as I sit down, something needs my attention. Rest in the airplane on the way to altitude!

ufk22

***
Another Northern DZO was pushing to have "young skydivers" deploy static line students. His thinking is/was that it only would require training and observation skills to deploy static line and/or IAD students. I think that this one had met with considerable resistance on the BOD.

Martin

That was me but, no, not a DZO, just an C-E S/L I-E.
Lots of resistance, and unfortunately I was not able to attend the meeting and explain things.
For the first decades of this sport, "young jumpers" (100 jumps) could and did act as jumpmasters, safely putting out thousands of S/L students, but unlike today, were not allowed to do the training. That was ONLY done by an instructor.
I now realize that in this day and age, anything pertaining to S/L operations needs a lot of explaining, as most skydivers (and board members) have no experience with this aspect of skydive training.
I had a discussion a couple of years ago with my "then" regional director who was questioning me about AFF vs SL, as she knew I had both ratings. What she wanted to hear was that AFF was much more difficult for the instructor. What I tried to explain was that although AFF required more flying skills, S/L or IAD required better TEACHING skills. When I'm doing AFF, worst case I can always grab the student, get them stable and even deploy for them.
With S/L or IAD, if I haven't taught it well or right before the student leaves the plane, there's nothing more I can do to help them out.
Not a popular answer nowdays, but it's the truth.

Bill,
I'm curious. Did you enter a Waiver request for a specific DZ for "hardship" or "research". It seems quite silly to think that you'd need to request a waiver for research purposes in order to demonstrate that the way it was done for the first 40 or so years is still safe and practical.