Witelli

Well then, whose fault is that. Did Skyhook unhook the shackle? Did you check the shackle? Either way, you'd better know how to deal with it if it doesn't work. I suggest you talk to your instructors.

Since we're all reading too deeply into this advertisement, this won't happen since it shows an open canopy overhead when Skyhook is enabled. And there must be an open canopy overhead (according to the advertisement) before you get to the "smile" point. Do you really think someone will throw away everything they've learned to an advertisement? I honestly can't see that, especially how EP's are so drilled in your head during AFF. Any normal person would question a new device and not just try it. I'm sure there are numbskulls that will try it, but that's their fault, not the advertiser. The downside of that is there ARE now people who know very little, don't bother to learn, don't worry about anything - and they're making hundreds of jumps. This is modern skydiving. The old rules don't necessarily apply. You won't die if you push the wrong button on your TV remote. That makes parachute equipment very very very different than almost anything else you buy. *** Here's 2 examples, ABS and 4WD. Watching the SUV's fly down the highway in a snowstorm just makes me cringe. Anyway, there is nothing in the advertisement that states that the Skyhook is a life saving device. Honestly, all I get out of it is, if I pull cutaway under an open canopy, reserve should deploy. That's it. Everything else is up to the skydiver. And anyone who looks at an advertisement and thinks that's all there is to skydiving is a moron and shouldn't be in the sky. Oh yea, here's an example. The idiot who burned herself with coffee at McDonalds. It was McDonald's fault that she didn't know not to spill hot coffee on herself. F'ing moron won millions. So I guess the moral of my story is. Be careful Skyhook, because some dumbass will sue you, because they can.

No. If you pull the reserve handle on a total mal at terminal, the skyhook will not deploy the reserve. The reserve handle will. The skyhook is an RSL that uses the cutaway canopy in the extraction process of the reserve canopy. It also, I believe, makes sure such extraction happens after both risers have properly separated from the rig. At least, that's what I understand it does. I may be wrong... OK fine, then the advertisement is not misleading. The pictures in the advertisement have an open canopy. Plus that sounds like a good thing, it will decrease the probability of a 2 out entanglement. So what the advertisement is really saying is that if you have a main canopy over your head and you decide to cutaway, the reserve will deploy immediately. What's wrong with that?

I have a question. If you market a product, are you going to advertise that is doesn't work? The purpose of the Skyhook is to deploy your reserve when you pull the cutaway (at least that's what I think it does). And that's it!!! Nothing more and nothing less. And just like ANYTHING else that we might buy, it may work and it may not. So I don't think it's the job of the equipment marketing team to teach us how to skydive, that's the job of our instructors to teach us and our job to learn. Their job is to tell us what their product does. Just my $.02.

We've all heard of the hard openings of the Sabre, why even chance it? I'll be looking into gear next year and that won't even be an option. I don't know crap, but if I've heard something as much as I've heard about the hard openings of the Sabre, I surely don't want to have anything to do with it. Why is there even an arguement? You can't say this canopy doesn't have the highest smack rate? At least from what we've heard in these forums. Plus, it's no longer in production. So who cares. Just don't buy one. Or, buy one if you don't cringe easilly.

Like if you lived on the outskirts of civilization with your two buddies, the pilot and the skydiver. And, they taught you to skydive and you've done hundreds of jumps with them, but none are documented. Would you still have to go through the entire AFF to get your "A" license. Hmmm, good question.

Haaa, that's funny. AFF instructors do have their work cut out for them.

At my DZ, we have AFP and that first "Fun" tandem counts towards it. I think if you never tried any sort of skydiving before, try a tandem. That way you'll know if you like it. Plus, you won't have to land on your own. Just my opinion though.

Wow!!! What an experience. I'm so glad you're OK though.

I think the bi-plane is what you would hope for in a 2 out. At least that's what it seemed like when I was reading the SIM. (fly front canopy, leave rear canopy's toggles stowed and don't flare on landing) The down plane looked nasty though. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.

Here's an interesting review from USPA.org. 3,660 reported reserve rides by USPA members in 2004. http://www.uspa.org/about/images/memsurvey04.pdf

There's so many ways to statistically analyze this. If you're going to use # of skydives, you should probably use # of car rides. Or, time spent driving vs. time spent skydiving (in this case skydiving would be way more dangerous, since the 200 jumps would only consist of roughly 3hrs20min of skydiving, people drive way more than that in a year, that's a little more than 1 days driving for me). I think the proper statistic would be to the question "how safe can skydiving be?" is, the total number of skydives per year vs. the total number of deaths that couldn't be avoided with reasonable training and responsibility. Only counting the deaths that were caused by mals that weren't able to be corrected in your normal EP's while you're not doing anything in your skydive that could put you at risk. Because that's how safe skydiving could be, and that would be answering the question honestly. When you want to make it more exciting it becomes more dangerous. But you don't have to.

Funny, I just posted in the "Inappropriate student canopies for lightweight people." thread saying the same thing. Your wingloading should at least allow you to penetrate the 14mph wind. If it's a rule for students to be in under 14mph winds, then shouldn't it be a rule that they are wingloaded to at least penetrate that wind? I don't have the skydiving experience to make this assumption, I'm just trying to think logically. So what do you think?

Since students shouldn't be flying in winds higher than 14mph their wingloading/canopy combination should enable them to AT LEAST penetrate a 14mph head wind. If they are loaded less than that I would think that would be somewhat dangerous (ex. trying to land while going backwards). I don't know how to calculate penetration vs. wingloading but I'm sure the canopy manufacturers do. If DZ's and students adhere to the 14mph rule and your canopy wingloading should allow you to penetrate that wind, and the spot is sufficiently upwind, there shouldn't be a problem. Is it that simple? (for minimum wing loading anyway)

Good to know, thanks.

Point taken. Thank you.

I don't think it would be a good idea to skydive while being pregnant. My wife and I went to Aruba when she was like 4 months pregnant and I wanted to get a 4WD and go out into the desert. Our doctor specifically said not to activities that could bounce you around too much. So we took a tour bus instead. Please ask your doctor. The canopy opening has to be stressful to the pregnant body. I'm no doctor, it just seems to make sense. If your doctor says it's OK, do it. Otherwise, why take the slightest chance?

"Walk toward the light." That's good!!! What about comparing skydiving to flying in an airplane when asked? I mean, you're flying a wing that's built to fly, just like an airplane or a glider.

Hmmm. I'd be willing to bet that going 500 mph at 35,000 feet altitude wouldn't be much more stressful to the body than we experience at normal skydiving altitudes. Granted you will probably die from rapid decompression, cold and lack of oxygen, and like you said, smacking into a wing. But I think I read somewhere that if you jump high enough, you can approach 1,000mph and gradually slow down as the air becomes denser. Terminal velocity, I believe is based on weight, surface area as well as the density of the air. Any Psysicists around to confirm?

Or if you land in a dangerous place where you could be dragged let's say off a building or off a cliff by your main before it deflates.

Congrats on passing #4!!! Never did tunnel time, but I can imagine even 10 minutes would take it's toll on you. That's like 10 skydive freefalls all crammed into 10 minutes. I wish there were a tunnel near me in N.Y.

Mark, I don't think you read my whole post. I'm simply saying that there comes a point where we have to do our own research so we can talk "with" our instructors as Trae said. Of course people will leave out things, that's why you should talk to 10 people, start a thread, get some of other people's thoughts. Then when you get to the DZ, you can have a somewhat educated discussion with your instructor and ask him the right questions. I think that way you could turn a short answer into a conversation that you will get more out of.

Trae, great point. Whenever I ask stupid questions in this forum, people tend to not want to answer and direct me to my instructor. We all know to ask the instructor, so saying it over and over just gets redundant and to be honest with you it's irresponsible (please read on before you rip me apart) to some extent. You need to have instructor approval as well as self approval. If your instructor says something that doesn't agree with you (you can handle these winds, you can handle this smaller canopy), but you don't feel comfortable with it. Don't jump until you resolve those feelings. If my instructor handed me a 200 size canopy I would not have jumped. Why, because I question everything and I learn by reading and learning from others, I wouldn't feel comfortable with that size. Don't think I'm saying an instructors word is not extremely important. All I'm saying is that you need his word FIRST then you have to also feel comfortable with it. If you don't, simply don't try it. It's your life up there. I'm sick of people trying to sue people just because they can't take responsibility for themselves. OK, so the first couple of AFF jumps you rely on your instructor, after that you should be educating yourself to the point that you can question the reasoning behind what your instructor is telling you. That is our own responsibility. What do you think, when a newbie asks a question can we change the phrase "Talk to your instructor" to "Talk to your instructor, feel comfortable with your instructor said and do it, or DON'T."

Good to hear. I've been afraid the night before, the drive to, while gearing up, on the plane. But once you're out that door it all seems to make sense. You land and can't wait to do it again. Then slowly but surely the fear sneaks back up on you. Very strange.

The only way to make your solution work is to balance smaller canopy types so they can also be used as transition rigs for intermediate jumpers. *** Good point. Students and newly licensed jumpers who still haven't bought their own rigs need to experience different canopy sizes, obviously through progression and instructor approval. So I think there should be availability to multiple sizes. However, you can't expect a DZ to have 5 of each size. So if you get 5 little AFF students on the same day, they'll just have to wait. We use Navigators, and I started on a 260, after only a few jumps, there was another student who was using the 260 so my instructor gave me the 240 at about a 1.04 wingloading. I don't have much experience with different canopies as these are the only 2 canopies I've flown, but I have to say I was much more comfortable under the 240 from day 1, much more penetration, controlability and flare. I think this canopy is just right for me now, the 260 was OK too, but anything bigger would suck if you got caught downwind. But that's just my experience. I guess I'm agreeing with the initial post that I wouldn't want to fly anything overly big or overly small. This is an interesting thread, since you always hear the risks of going too high on a wingloading. You don't hear much of the risks going the other way. Wow, I just checked the PD website and my 250 exit weight puts me at the novice level for the 260 canopy, but you should be advanced to ride a 240 at that weight. With only 14 jumps should I be comfortable with the 240 or am I misleading myself. TALK TO YOUR INSTRUCTOR, I know and I will, but what do you think? I'm not trying to hijack, but if one canopy size takes you from studednt to advanced, that doesn't leave you with many options for progression. Pretty weird, huh?