sfzombie13

nice. i had to look up ambiguity to make sure i used the word correctly. then i had to go back and read the entire thread to make sure i wasn't hallucinating or playing devil's advocate on something. after all of that i am pretty sure that i have been saying all the time that the two phrases are pretty clear to me, and included what i thought the definition should be. i said that the uspa definitions are clear as mud, meaning that they are hard to understand, and they don't even use the term "cutaway", which is what they are supposed to be referencing. perhaps that is what you mean.

i just don't see the ambiguity between hard deck and decision altitude. hard deck implies it's hard, no changes. decision altitude implies that you make a choice, the only time you choose between cutaway and don't cutaway. the numbers can change as you say, depending on lots of things, but that is after the student learns the definitions. if we need more words to convey the meaning, i'm all for it though. just because i understand it doesn't mean everyone does. the way it is sucks pretty good though. overall, i agree with you.

what are your suggestions to replace them? it's very easy to flip the jargon in the definitions the way they are, but they don't even say cutaway and are about as easy to understand as a legal definition of something. students get lots of things mixed up, that's why we need to continue to drill them on the things they need to know to survive, not change the terms for them. we need to change the official definition for sure, but not the words themselves. you don't change something that has worked for 99.995% of the group so that a new member doesn't have to learn the terms we all use. not unless you have a really good replacement in mind that everyone else will remember or you just trade the problem from one group to another.

yes. deploy the reserve, then do a canopy transfer. so, apparently i was wrong on this one, or someone was wrong on the other thread. this is what the discussions are all about, clarification. in my limited experience, i have always been taught not to cutaway below 1000ft, and i would have done so in this case, especially had someone split my canopy. another canopy would have slowed the bundle and then all would of them would have had a softer landing. soften it up enough and the roof would have held them, especially if they hit it flat and spread across a couple of rafters. now here i am discussing important crap in the wrong thread.

i got the first one, then when corresponding with the tech guys that make it, told them about the thing turning on when you plug in the charger cord. they said it was wired wrong and sent another. didn't even ask for the old one back, said i could keep it. it may be cheaply made, looks like a 3d printed case, but it is well made and i have used mine for two years now with no problems. absolutely cannot be beat for the price, at least when i paid $100 for mine.

question on the tube stows: are they working good? i won't use mine because they aren't as grippy as real ones. i just got a chance to get to the dz yesterday to try them out. we tested the breaking strength and holding the seam, it went to 12 lbs and about a foot of stretch and didn't break. then he got out a real tube stow and we found it was slick as hell in comparison. i can't seem to find a silicone tubing supply easily. that's all food grade stuff and i'd hate to buy another bunch of the wrong stuff.

send them both in as suggestions then. this is one place where legalese is not a good idea. regular, plain, english is preferred in a case like this. they can use whatever language they want in waivers, but people can die from a misunderstanding of this. perhaps it was a link in this chain, but we will never know for sure.

but do they both convey the message clearly?

that's what i'm talking about here, it doesn't even say cutaway. it could be a lot more clear. decision altitude - last chance to make a decision, if you have not cutaway, do it now or don't do it at all. hard deck - do not cut away below this altitude. if you need to deploy your reserve, do not cutaway, just deploy it. why can it really not be this simple and clear? it could at least mention cutaway in both of them. edit: i posted this just a tad after the other one above.

i had one four years ago, 24 foot conical actually, not really round but it was pretty and worked great. may have been a bit longer than that, covid time messed me up. i think they are talking about not cutting away below altitude x, not waiting that long to deploy the reserve or waiting to cutaway. honestly, i never once found it confusing and i screwed up almost everything as a student at one time or another. decision altitude was 2500 ft, when you get there, make a decision. hard deck is 1500 ft. when you get there you don't make a decision, you ride in what you've got out. some cases you want more fabric out, some cases you don't. technically that's a decision, but not the decision we are talking about, so i can see the confusion. either way, my definition is way more clear than the one uspa has. i couldn't even tell what they were talking about in the definition.

if you're looking for a cheap audible, get an aon2 brilliant pebbles. they don't do talking altitudes though. but for that price you can get two, one in each ear and turn them up. get them to beep every 1000 or 500 ft to do a countdown. then make them start beeping like crazy at pull altitude. i think it has 20 alarms you can set and 8 or 10 different tones.

yeah, that's as clear as mud. does it apply to cut away?

to me, and the way i was trained, it ain't rocket science. decision altitude is the lowest altitude you can get to and make a decision. hard deck has nothing to do with decisions, no more decisions can be made and you do not cut away below the hard deck. notice that decision is not in the equation, or if it is, it is only to be made completely clear that a decision is not to be made. you can pull your reserve, and maybe should in some cases, but you cannot under any circumstances cut away. i thought everyone taught this. it should be taught this way. all credit to the instructors at wv skydivers for that if it's unique.

i think you need to use the @ like @scarface007. nope. that didn't work.

so, you read it and the helicopter part was believable?

typical right wing idiot thinking there, why not both? is it possible for both to be true? if you want someone to think for you, i doubt you could afford me or would like the results. i have friends, and some of them even have college degrees, while one is a professor. access to a jstor account isn't that hard to get when you have friends. i suggest getting one. yep, only the article. all studies that show something of this nature appear to me to be common sense, so yes, it does appear that way. i believe the new insight is that it doesn't matter what the opinion is; as long as it's not the mainstream opinion it will lead to fanaticism more easily. honestly, i just can't discuss it now, i'm over it. i had some things in mind a few days ago, but have since moved on and that's about all i can muster now. appreciate the banter. reminds me to stay the hell out of this part of the forum.

i used to hang out here a lot, but after a few months, you can predict how every thread would go and who would say what to about 95% accuracy. i left due to being sick and stayed gone after my conversion. i did think at least one good discussion would come from it. guess i was wrong. enjoy the day.

i read it, i just didn't pay for you to read it. piss off. anyone else care to comment on it? almost anyone else, that is. it seems i have attracted something.

i guessed, but was really looking for a discussion. your thoughts on it?

no, but i read the article. did you do a <favorite search engine> search for it to see if the publication was reputable or are you just being purposefully obtuse? i know, but i want to hear your excuse. if you want me to do the work for you, you're barking up the wrong tree. enjoy your answers.

like the old prggo commercial used to say..."put your nose against the jar, it's in there", meaning rtfm, or article in this case. i linked to the article, and the link in the text shows a link tot he actual study so you can read the whole thing yourself. i have no idea if the publication is reputable. it's a discussion forum for a reason, discuss it. i can't read it for you, but i can give you every opportunity to read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

from the article - "A new series of nine experimental studies indicates that “discordant knowing”, certainty about something one perceives as opposed by the majority of others, predicts greater fanaticism. The studies showed that experimental manipulation of participants’ views, i.e. putting them in a situation where they are set to see their views as being in opposition to the majority, increased behavioral indicators of fanaticism, such as aggression, determined ignorance and wanting to join extreme groups in service of one’s view. The study was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Dogmatic beliefs, fanaticism and similar phenomena have been attracting interest of social psychologists for a long time. Tendencies of some people to maintain their beliefs in opposition to the views of the majority of people in their environment has been linked to these phenomena. Some studies proposed that people adopt such isolating behavior in an effort to satiate desires for certainty, control and uniqueness. One concept proposed to explain this is “discordant knowing”. It consists of “felt knowledge” – being sure about an opinion or viewpoint – and “opposition” – perceiving one’s claim as being generally opposed by other people. While previous studies have focused very much on “felt knowledge”, a concept associated with dogmatism, rigidity, overclaiming and similar traits, psychological processes linked to holding minority viewpoints have not attracted much research attention." certainly explains a lot if true.

let 'em leave. then it is enforced as they can't jump at a uspa dz without being a member. if they choose to stay a member, they abide the rules. easy as hell. it also automatically enforces itself that way.

not to mention the "not enforceable" part is bullshit. implement the license endorsements, set the limits, and require proof of it when purchasing a canopy. sure it won;t stop all of them, and some will fake it. what it will do is set the standard for a safety culture and in a few years it will be a non issue.

that's a great question and brings up a grate point. uspa needs to put the fatalities into a searchable database so that you can answer it yourself.