jimthefireman

Good article. The fallacy of jump numbers alone or years in the sport alone defining ability is best understood by comparing the average aging motorist with a young professional racing driver. Am I a better driver than Scott Dixon because I had been driving eleven years before he was born? Of course not! I may have 26 more years on the road than him, but there is a big difference between just being there "changing the gears" and the totally focused, constant improvement of someone who thinks carefully about what they are going to do first, commits absolutely to the task at hand while doing it and then reviews and critiques their performance, seeking input from others and drawing lessons for their next attempt. Skydiving is absolutely no different, which is why some of these tunnel flying young bucks can fly rings around us long time "hobby jumpers" There is great benefit in having maturity and having over the years been present when hard lessons were learned but skill is not absorbed through some sort of "jump suit osmosis" and every jump brings the need to properly prepare, fly within ones limits (and the limits of the group you are with) and land safely if you are to avoid becoming a statistic.

It was an honour and a privilege to have met and skydived with this great man and his friends at the world Pops meets in New Zealand, Switzerland and Australia. May his spirit live on in all who love the sport.

I remember my first cuttaway from a PC fore and aft with capewells. Deployed the chest mount reserve while face to earth and was feeling very disorganized after swinging back to smack my helmet on the runway at Whenuapai on landing. Shirley was the one to walk across to offer some comfort and support and it was appreciated. I jumped her custom made Russian PC fore and aft gear once or twice and considered it an honour to do so. She will be missed and had a bunch of people at her memorial in the park. Cheers Tim, Jim MacleanQuote

The short answer is "yes of course it looks dangerous". It may well be that it would work satisfactorily for a number of jumps, but sport skydivers today expect gear to be more reliable than a "well that should probably work" and any responsible drop zone operator would refuse to allow you to jump with it. On the plus side, kudos to you for asking advice. Later on you may be interested in becomming a test jumper or doing R&D at the cutting edge. If you do I positively guarantee that at some stage something that looks a lot less scary than that will frighten the wits out of you one day.

I met Fiona at the world POP's meet in Toogoolawah two years ago. She was a wonderful ambassador for our sport and always had a ready smile and time to help, advise or even just share a success or commiserate over a setback with anyone at any level. We were privileged to have known her and our heartfelt sympathy goes out to her family and those she worked with and for in her veterinary practice. Blue skies pretty lady. You will be missed but you surely left your mark on us all.

The thing about the existing ripcord pins is that there are a heck of a lot of them and that they have been used for a heck of a long time. This is what gives you a track record to allow for the "one in a million" problem to become "one hundred in one hundred million" and become noticed and fixed. The big change with pins was when cones (which could have gromments lock on them in some circumstances) gave way to loops which were much less likely to give problems and in turn allowed for cutting devices to deploy reserves which incidently meant even a seriously bent pin would not stop the deployment. A group of people "brain storming" a new solution can never compare with a track record. I believe that people have died because of a bent pin, but never heard of a single instance where it happend or seen a fatality report from that cause in three decades of reading them. I would be very reluctant to jump into an apparent "improvement" until I knew the present system really was a problem, and the proposed change did not cause some new and unknown problem to appear.

Forgot the link to CW03-01 here it is http://www.softieparachutes.com/PDF/PIA%20PIN%20TechBulletinnical%2071003Rev3.pdf

They say "good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions...". As a 30 year skydiver and a 37 year firefighter I have seen a bit here and there and amassed my share of "experience" too. Another quote I like is that "Some can be told, some can learn from watching others, but there is always the guy who has to pee on the electric fence himself to understand...". There is no doubt in my mind that Cypres having a time proven product gives it an edge in proven reliability, but the other products mentioned have also been tested and proven to a significant degree. I do not believe it is either "reckless" or "essential" to choose any of them and despair of those who pay microscopic attention to detail in one aspect of their safety, while ignoring other significant dangers in their lives. Far more skydivers will be killed and injured through foolish actions (usually with a fair measure of plain bad luck) than will ever be killed through AAD failure. Cypres ushered in the age of the thoroughly reliable AAD. Whether they need to be quite as picky with their batteries, service standards and life of components, only time will tell one way or another. Like the earlier comment, I would happily jump with any of them, or none at all (on my own) but if I won the lottery, for now, I would buy a Cypres 2.

I will be interested to see the article too. It is nice that people are interested and aware enough to share their experiences and pass on hard information rather than just opinion so the photos and discussion are much appreciated. I simply cannot see how (unless there is a significant initial defect in manufacturing as occurred with capewell pins from November 01 to July 03) a slight bend as pictured could cause any significant change to required pull force or liklihood of breakage. Poynters in part six details manufacture, inspection and testing of pins and suggests "As a practical matter, pins may be tested with the fingers prior to packing". The CW03-01 service bulletin will give you an idea of just how much leverage a safe pin will withstand without any bend at all for comparison and you would need impressive fingers to make an impression on a good pin. I was told by one of those who initially found the problem that the pins which failed CW03-01 broke with very little force indeed. Having said all that, in aviation generally, you will never get in trouble by being overly cautious and simply replacing anything which is not 100% right. If the rigger bent it, then he (or she) should replace it.

Heard the sad news today. It is nice to see the forum and the familiar names from way back. Mick I see you and remember the Holden and the trips to Whenuapai, Jana it was amazing the day you two turned up on our doorstep in Auckland. From the time Harry put Helen's picture on Parachutist from the Bali Boogie to meeting you in Lombok and following your skydiving together you bring back a lot of happy memories and I know that is the way Harry would want it. Be well Jana, his loss is a burden most of all for you, but knowing him was a rush... most of all for you. blue skies!