alan

Thanks for the information, I'll pass it along to Carl Nelson, he thought a loose brake line had something to do with a car. I'm still puzzled as to why riggerrob would suggest I ask my neighbor about this. Just during the last 6 months, or since someone started keeping statistics? That doesn't seem right to me. To be sure, the examples are endless. One that jumps to mind is the throwout pc. Used to be mounted on a bellyband and was implicated in quite a few fatalities over a number of years. We learned and improved the system. Now we seem to be deluged with bent pins on new tandem rigs. That too will lead to something better. I'm not sure either. I know people didn't always stow the excess steering line even before the velcro-less craze. I think it has more to do with the jumpers, their attitudes, knowledge, and training. What have we gained? Time will tell. Technology will continue to change, sometimes the change is for the better, sometimes for the worse. Sometimes the mistakes lead to something that is much better. Are the parachute sytems we use today better or worse than the ones we had 10 years ago? What have we gained? Has the change been worth it? I believe what we have now is more reliable. I'm not sure that means it is safer. We do seem to have fewer fatalities per jump now than we did 10 and 20 years ago. Is that in spite of or because of technology? What about the human factor? Carl and I will have a beer and discuss these questions at length. alan

He didn't have a clue and suggested asking someone at the garage or Midas, etc.. alan

From my first post: "An altimeter is a tool and can be used but should not be relied on soley, visual verification is a must." "Don't rule out the altimeter at first, but get a lot of practice estimating distances/altiudes, learn the sight picture and with time and experience the altimeter will get used less and less. It is a tool, you can use it to learn but also use common sense and your eyes." From my first post. "An altimeter is a tool and can be used but should not be relied on soley, visual verification is a must." "Don't rule out the altimeter at first, but get a lot of practice estimating distances/altiudes, learn the sight picture and with time and experience the altimeter will get used less and less. It is a tool, you can use it to learn but also use common sense and your eyes." From my most recent response to billvon about this same concern. "As as far as taking your eyes off the surrounding area, we scan. Constantly. That is a given. We are taught that very early on, or at least most of us are or should have been. Many even learn it. The alti is included in the scan. Fixating on cues that don't change much; people on the ground, wind blades or structures nearby have been the cause of many more accidents than a glance at the alti during a scan. You are right, canopy collisions have killed many people in the sport. I have yet to read an incident report that concluded that the cause was taking the time to check an altimeter." I'm not sure, but apparently a fair number. A quote from a post by Chuck Blue. "My sight picture was completely fucked, so the next day I was at a distinct disadvantage. I did pretty good at that meet (12th), but that was only because I got much better every round. You see, the Perris pond had absolutely no terrain to judge your turn off of. I, as a "terrain judging turner" had to modify my technique to the new sight picture I was seeing. The people that were "altimeter height turners" had a much easier time. In the end, you have two choices: start making your setup and final turn based on altitude and density (if you are jumping at a very-different altitude than normal), or show up early and ease into the new terrain. Both work equally well. Chuck" I'm not really qualified to answer this one. My best guess is that they start by using several of them as tools and as their skills increase, they use most, if not all of them less and less. Start the loop at 2000' and end it at 2000'. Start the roll at 160 knots, let it drop to no less than 120 and then end at 160. Begin the manuever on a heading of 270 degrees and finish on that heading. By the time they are performing at Oshkosh, I'll bet most of it is performed in reference to a piece of string, some etchings on the canopy bubble, and/or some wire reference lines out on a wing. It is just part of the scan. I used to glance at the speedometer quite often when I first learned to drive. I still include it in my scans, only now it is not to learn how to judge my speed, just to give some confirmation to what I am seeing. I've been in a good mood driving, daydreaming a little, and have glanced at the speedometer only to discover that I was going much faster than I had thought. On at least one occassion, the police officer agreed with me. alan

600'???? Where did that number come from? Didn't you mean to say "from a sight picture that you have learned to arbitrarilly designate as over 600' ?" alan

No, I don't.........I am by nature just a laid back sorta guy. That's what I meant by get off the fence. Take a stand man. It was nice of you to relate your experiences, but bill (and a few others) gave out what I thought was bad advice........A blanket statement like "I would strongly recommend NOT using your altimeter to judge swoop entry heights." That is fine to have that opinion and share it, but at least acknowledge there is an alternative. Let the jumper learn/decide what works for them. Regardless of your experiences, or bills', or the others, there are PRO swoopers out there that use the alti. I backed that up with a cut and paste of a post from Chuck. bill and few others are trying to make it sound as if using the altimeter as a tool tool learn sight pictures will get you killed. I don't appreciate getting dumped on for offering alternative, reasonable, and supportable advice. Your post did not make feel as if you were taking issue. My impression is that you did not understand what I was saying. I'm still not sure you do. Agreeing and disagreeing is what it is all about. Supporting one's position with sound reasoning and having people understand what is being said helps them learn. For me personally, I really don't like to clutter the place up with a lot of "ya, me too's". If the post is sound, I let it go at that. If the post offer's some bad advice, I may jump in, case in point. Depends on how repetative the thread is, some have been done to death, several times over. I can recall a lengthy debate I had with bill quite some time ago. It was about the advice many jumpers have been given under todays newer, higher performance canopies about flying in brakes when in turbulence, especially when landing. I stuck to my guns. The new SIM came out, and what do you know, it gives the same advice I was giving. One adventure after the other.....a few of the "Hey Bubba, watch this" nature. Stop by again, I won't forget the Leinies this time. alan

Go back and read a little closer. I don't think anyone, myself included has suggested relying on an altimeter. I suggested using as tool to help learn those sight pictures and awareness and was specific about not using it as a sole means. I pretty much said that ecxact same thing. Here is a cut and paste quote of what i said, " It really doesn't matter if the alti is all that accurate, because it really doesn't matter if the swooper's alti indicates at 400', 450', or even 500' and the fact that the starting point may not be as indicated doesn't matter either. We need a palce to start, any place that is high enough to allow the learning curve to progress on subsequent jumps." Get it, the alti can be used as a tool, the goal being to use it to help evaluate and judge the picture you are seeing and remeber it as a good one or bad one. Then try to duplicate it or improve on it. 10, 20', 30' or 50' at the top don't mean doodly, it is the adjustments you make thoughout the manuver that save you or hurt you. The better you get at the top sight picture, the better chance you have to maximize the rest of the potential. You agree with Craddock so much, ask him about the debate we had a few years back when I suggested that we learn to jump w/o an alti. His response at that time was why would we even want or need to do that. I explained it to him. He saw the light. He jumped for years w/o one. The point is you all are posting as if I'm an altimeter dependant, alti nazi. Jeez, I was the one who posted several years ago that we should learn not to be dependant on them, that even then they are a tool to use with our eyes, common sense, and good judgement. Do you use it to learn to swoop? Y ou CAN use it as a tool to help learn your sight pictures. Here it is again, where does this differ from what you posted? There is nothing in any of my posts that even remotely suggests trusting, whether or not it worked the last time. Evaluate, compare, analyze. "An altimeter is a tool and can be used but should not be relied on soley, visual verification is a must." "Don't rule out the altimeter at first, but get a lot of practice estimating distances/altiudes, learn the sight picture and with time and experience the altimeter will get used less and less. It is a tool, you can use it to learn but also use common sense and your eyes. alan

Josh, go back and read my posts in this thread, starting with the first one. If you read with only a minimal amount of care, you should be able to see that I haven't advocated the use of an alti as something to be relied on. I suggested using it as a tool to help develop and and confirm what yuour eyes are seeing and that with time and experience, its' use is diminished as the other skills are developed. That seems to me to be the gist of your post. get off the fence and learn to jump w/o goggles, a helmet and even an altimeter. What part of this do you not understand or have a problem with? It is a tool and over time we use it less and increasingly, mentally make the adjustents. Is that or isn't it what you described as your experience? alan

>So are you saying that I made that up, or it is just irrelevant? I'll take that to mean that it is irrelevant. I'll wager that with the exception of perhaps 1% of the top swoopers in the world, you also can't accurately judge the sight picture from 350' to an accuracy of +/_ 35'. >Yes, and how many of us have eyes that are well trained enough to >get us under that 20' window, moving both horizontally and vertcally? And I merely committed the mortal sin of suggesting that an altimeter can be used as a tool to help develop that skill. Your responses appear to me to suggest that you think I'm advocating it as an only means and should be relied on without using your eyes, common sense, and good judgement. >So you agree huh? Then why the response? seems like your grinding an axe. I never suggested relying on an alti as a way to start swooping before developing alittude awareness. I suggested using it as a tool to help develop that awareness and never as a sole means. >How do you propose that new swoopers learn to gauge altitude to > less than +/- 20 by sight alone without some tool to give them a > starting point for reference? Very good, I'd have to agree as far as it goes. The fact still remains that many, if not most of us still use a glance at the alti to help us anlayze, evaluate ,and eventually remember the most effective sight picture. I doubt any of us ever get to the point where we are consistently within the +/- 20 feet that you suggest is so critical, but we do eventually get consistent enough so that small, smooth corrections can lead to better swoops with little or no use of the alti for some of us. > We need a palce to start, any place that is high enough to allow the > learning curve to progress on subsequent jumps. Just where or when did I ever even suggest starting by looking at your altimeter and starting a toggle 270 at 500 feet is a good way to start learning? As as far as taking your eyes off the surrounding area, we scan. Constantly. That is a given. We are taught that very early on, or atleast most of us are or should have been. Many even learn it. The alti is included in the scan. Fixating on cues that don't change much; people on the ground, wind blades or structures nearby have been the cause of many more accidents than a glance at the alti during a scan. You are right, canopy collisions have killed many people in the sport. I have yet to read an incident report that concluded that the cause was taking the time to check an altimeter. alan

Just another note to add, I know it would be PI for another moderator here in the forums to step in and agree with me, especially when it would contradict billvon, so here is a link to another post in a thread in the swooping forum, by SkymonkeyONE. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=197780;search_string=swooping%20setup%20altitude;#197780 Here is a cut and paste in case the link thing does not work. I added the boldface to make it easy to spot the most relevant portion. With this in mind bill, you can ignore me and work it out with Chuck via PM. alan

So are you saying that I made that up, or it is just irrelevant? At 300' to 1000' feet they are usually accurate enough to get you in the "ball park" so you can use it as a tool to start learning your sight picture, OK? Yes, and how many of us have eyes that are well trained enough to get us under that 20' window, moving both horizontally and vertcally? We need a place to start and then make adjustments over each subsequent jump until we learn to see the correct sight picture, which changes from DZ to DZ and even from day to day as the weather changes. Do a poll, see how many of the best PRO swoopers learned to do it without the aid of an altimeter. I'll bet they all still wear them but place little reliance on them at this point, but then that is not the issue here is it? So you agree huh? Then why the response? That is what I said, only I added that the alti is a tool that can help you learn to gauge height. How do you propose that new swoopers learn to gauge altitude to less than +/- 20 by sight alone without some tool to give them a starting point for reference? Jumpers post here that they set up at 450' or some other number, based on their canopy and the manuever to be used. Just where do they come up with that estimate in the first place? Given your logic here, we apparently don't even need to use an alti to learn to see pull altitudes either, we just need training and practice. It really doesn't matter if the alti is all that accurate, because it really doesn't matter if the swooper's alti indicates at 400', 450', or even 500' and the fact that the starting point may not be as indicated doesn't matter either. We need a palce to start, any place that is high enough to allow the learning curve to progress on subsequent jumps. A modern skydiving altimeter used in conjunction with one's eyes, common sense, and reasonably good judgement will allow most of us to learn the sight picture and make the constant stream of fine adjustments to make a good swoop. The better we get, the finer, smoother, and more subtle the adjustments get. Over time and many jumps, we even learn to mentally make fine adjustments for new locations and varying conditions. That is what differentiates between the PROs and the weekend swoopers. alan

An altimeter is a tool and can be used but should not be relied on soley, visual verification is a must. The alimeters I have purchased (Barigo, FT40 and FT50) have all come with a quality control form that indicated that the alti had been tested (presumeably in a chamber) at different altitudes and what the error was on both ascent and decent. I'm not sure what rates were used, but they all had error tolerances much less than +/- 200 feet, which is closer to the "lag" that most altimeters exhibit. The "lag" is most pronounced in freefall, witha high rate of descent and "catches up" during opening shock. The QC forms that I have seen indicate the altimeter is usually closer to +/_ 35' or less at most altitudes. My experience is that very few people can visually estimate altitudes/distances in the 100' to 1000' range with much more accuracy than that without a considerable amount of training and practice, and that is usually in a situation where things aren't moving. Don't rule out the altimeter at first, but get a lot of practice estimating distances/altiudes, learn the sight picture and with time and experience the altimeter will get used less and less. It is a tool, you can use it to learn but also use common sense and your eyes. alan

Maybe these don't apply to what you have in mind, but should be food for considerstion. This is just from 2001, if you were to look deeper thwere may be more. The details are in the reports at the web-site. http://www.skydivingfatalities.com/ 2001 U.S. Analysis • Three jumpers have died this year when an entanglement occurred in some way with their helmet/camera combination. Two entanglements were with the main during/after a malfunction+cutaway, and one was with the reserve bridle after a cutaway. Only the person in the latter situation manage to remove the helmet before impact. If you jump with a camera helmet which has any snag points (such as a ring-sight, or camera mounting bracket) you are taking a substantial additional risk. If you further do not have some type of quick release, you are adding even more risk. At a minimum, you should have, built in to your malfunction plan, the intention of removing your helmet in case of an entanglement. Of course, this slows down your malfunction procedure, so deploying slightly higher in general is probably necessary to keep this from adding more risk as well. Weigh your options, think carefully, and consider modifying your helmet to reduce the chance of snags in the first place. alan

In addition, George Galloway from PS has written that it is the contact with the surface area the reserve is being packed on that causes much of the damage. Most reserves seem to be packed on a carpeted area and the interaction fibers act like velcro and degrade the canopy. I seem to recall reading a comment from him that a smooth, sealed concrete surface would be best for the canopy. Then again, I may just remember it all wrong. alan

My apolgies to Skymedic for butting in here to speak for him and double that if I am wrong. I do not see anything inconsistent in his statements. After a canopy is open and presumeably flying well, there is no longer much need for the RSL to be connected at that point since it is highly unlikely that a malfunction would occur, unless induced by being overzealous with toggle inputs. Some people in some areas of the country choose to disconnect the RSL after the canopy is open and functioning because high winds/turbulence on the ground after landing may cause them to want to cutaway the main and they may not want the RSL to pull the reserve pin. I hope this clears up the disconnection of the RSL after every canopy deployment statement. To me, it does not seem to be inconsistent with advocating its' use on jumps that do not involve video, skyboards, or CRW. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies and ignore me. alan

Yes, I can remember a few years back when someone had the idea that the few inches of slack in the reserve rc cable that extended lose inside the reserve D handle posed some kind of snag risk and decided it should be tucked inside the velco sandwich that secures the handle. The idea even caught on to the point where some non-riggers doing reserve data card checks at boogies, competitions, etc. just started doing it on rigs they were checking in. It is a shame how things like that get started and catch on. It took several premature reserve deployments before people started to catch on. Had a few people try it on my rigs a few years back. I asked about their rigger certification.....none...... "Well, what you are messing with is an integral part of a TSO'd system, you better leave it alone unless you know what you are doing." I got some real smart ass replies from a couple of 200 jump wonders. alan

Derek has done some testing with canopies and reports that a canopy with the ribs and top skin removed does not inflate. That would seem to suggest that the bottom skin does not take much of the load at all, but rather it is transferred through the loading tapes to the top skin. My limited experience tends to support that notion, since the canopy damage I have observed due to hard openings has been heavily in favor of tears/rips in the top skin or broken lines, even tears in the ribs, not tears in the bottom skin. What am I missing here? alan

Shoving a rolled nose as far as you can into the canopy is a very sure way of eventually experiencing a line-over malfunction. When you push the nose in, it pushes the steering lines apart and they migrate towards the nose of the canopy. They can very easily move around the front of the nose when you lay the canopy down to "cocoon" it. Additionally, during the "cocoon" process, when you are squeazing out the air and shaping the cocoon to fit the d-bag, the lines tend to migrate even more. If they are in front of the nose as the canopy inflates, one or more outboard cells can pressurize outboard of the steering lines and you have a line-over. Just for fun some day, after you have cocooned the canopy and are ready to stack it for placement into the d-bag, carefully unroll and open the tail. taking note of where the steering lines are in relation to the nose cells. If they are over the nose, you are at an increased risk of a line-over. If you are not sure of what I am describing, or what to look for, ask a rigger for some help. alan

Thanks for the red highlight.......that wasn't clear to me from your ORIGINAL post. I have particpated in these debates, where would you put me? BTW, does your theory only include the rec.skydiving and dropzone.com debates? YOU have participated in these debates, have you not? Would you consider yourself in this group? So your THEORY says this: "This group sees no clear and obvious benefit to jumping without a CYPRES." You admit to being part of that theoretical group and in the same breath say: "I jumped without a CYPRES because the benefit was clear and obvious - I needed to train with my team and needed to borrow a rig." So, maybe there is another group who have particpated in these debates who have started jumping after the CYPRES became commonplace, and to whom the CYPRES is just another part of the rig, like the toggles or pilot chute. Sure, you can steer and land a parachute without toggles, and you COULD deploy your main without a pilot chute, but WILL BECAUSE THEY SOMTIMES SEE A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS BENEFIT TO DOING SO! Just a thought, feel free to ignore me. I stayed away from the red stuff, I give you enough credit to believe you can read the shouting without it. alan

Would you consider yourself in this group? Even when you are doing 10 way speed and borrow a rig, one without a CYPRES? alan

You seem to be painting with an overly wide brush. What side of the debate would Roger have fallen into? He certainly would not fall into the category of those who started jumping post-AAD days. By default, that should put him in the side of the pre-AAD philosophy. He didn't seem to fit there though, but then I didn't know him near as well as you. I had hoped to stimulate you into thinking about your theory a little more. Perhaps there are one or more categories you may have missed and many, many people who might fit into that/those category(s). Then again, since I only charge $30 for a reserve repack and understand the concept of deceleration(and am willing to defend my positions), I've been relegated to the status of rude, common troll. I'm outa here now Doc, I'm sure there are already those salivating at the thought of telling the world how I have somehow now besmirched the name and memory of a man I respected. It was a mistake to post in the first place. alan

Roger Nelson? alan

You have already decided it is a sweet deal. Your only question was: You don't seem to know much about the harness/container and even less about the reserve, other than the price, yet have decided it is a sweet deal and want confirmation here. You don't even seem to know what your own thread is about. From your original post, all you really asked is if it is that bad to jump without an AAD. Do a search. That topic has been discussed, at length, many times. alan

It is obvious then that you could understand my confusion when the 2 represents an exponent and I thought that raising a number by that power meant exponentially. You know, there is a certain similarity between exponent and exponentially. But what if x=2? Even if I'm slowing down? You don't understand that it is a bad thing to accelerate as you approach a red light in heavy traffic? Oh, I get it, you only accelerate realtive to the guy who runs the red light, at least from his perspective. I have some friends in the police dept., they're gonna love this! Inertia is a property of matter by virtue of which any physical body persists in its state of rest or of uniform motion until acted upon by some external force; its quantitative expression is mass. Centrifugal force however, seems to be the inertial reaction of a body against a force constraining to move it in a curved path. OK, but I'm still not going to accelerate when I approach a red light in heavy traffic, well at least if you aren't the observer in the car running the red light. Can I get a ticket for accelerating through a red light even if I come to a complete stop? Us laymen....we just don't get anything! alan

Wags, At 3 to 4 hours for a normal I&R, it would come out to $8 to $10 per hour for this particular job. I do other jobs that go up to higher than $60 per hour. It is not just about money to me. By the way, I even do some volunteer work.....Children's Miracle Network and stuff like that. Well good for you. You are very generous. You can be proud of yourself. I'm glad to know you have such a good work ethic. I'm sure that you don't mean to imply that I just breeze through a repack and don't look for and find problems. That statement makes you sound pretty stupid. Just how often should you find problems? You mean to say that you don't think that you should find those types of problems? Maybe you are trying to imply that I don't. Hmmm... What the hell has that got to do with me? Do you think I'm just trying to be a nice guy? The truth is, at my DZ we have had a history of summer, full-time help that have charged $45 or more for rigging services that included leaving the reserve risers tied together, rolling the nose on the reserve, using a repide link as a fix to forgetting to run the reserve rc cable though the RSL ring.........I don't have the time or patience with you to type it all. I want my friends to use me because I want them to live you arrogant, pompous, self important jackass. Do you have a point? If so, then just say it. Well finally! I would suggest that you spend less time in this forum posting shit about which you know less than shit and go jump. I don't think $45 is "donating" your time. You seem to be a judgemental, arrogant snot. I think my time is worth something as well. I had 8 saves last year alone, ask those people what I am worth. Just shut the fuck up Mr. rigger since Feb. Who the hell are you to decide what the world's percpetion is. You responded to my post about me. You see $30 and you decide you know all about me and what I do. Now ain't that just to bad you poor little hero. I only did three yesterday, can I go out for a drink? Is it OK with you if I decide what I'm willing to pay? alan

No, I grasp it very well thank you. My point all along. No need, I understand it. So, what is it doing from the perspective of someone in the airplane? You see, as Bill stated, if we have to learn one thing from Einstein, it is we have to define our frame of reference and stick to it. I clearly defined it as the ground. Seems to a constant with respect to skydiving. Seems as if my perspective coincides with Mr. Poynter's. Does yours? But the ground is the constant. I just used that as an example to illustrate the illusion it creates. The whuffos don't ask, "Why are they accelerating?", they ask, "Why are they going up?" Frame of reference, perspective, point of view, relative to (fill in the blank). If you want to pick and choose your reference, than why not the plane? After all, you just left it, it was your point of origin from one perspective. It has all made perfect sense all along. I guess it just depends on your perspective. By the way, I understood it when I read Enstein's description illustrating it using two trains sitting side by side. Hint: jumping from an airpalne is not a theory, you and everything/everybody with you will be travelling towards Earth. alan