ghost47

Sangi, Should there be ANY rules for skydiving? In other words, say someone who has never skydived before goes to a dropzone, says I'll accept all risks, I'll do a solo jump so I can't hurt anyone else, just give me the rig and let me go. My life, my choice. Should there be a rule against that? I'm going to assume you'd say yes. Now, someone on solo student status says, I've passed 8 levels of AFF, stood up all my landings, I bought this rig with a Velocity canopy for cheap. It's a little smaller, but I can handle it. How hard could it be? Should there be a rule against that? Again, I assume you'd say yes. Then a newly minted A-licensed jumper -- 25 jumps -- says all right, I've got a license. Give me my camera and a wingsuit, I wanna make a youtube video! Should there be a rule against that? If you have answered yes to these questions, would you say you are trying to take away these people's fun? Additionally, if you are answering yes to all of these questions, it sounds like your problem is not that there are rules, it's that you disagree with the content of the rules. But then you're no longer arguing that there should be no rules on downsizing, or no rules on jumping camera, or a wingsuit, all you're arguing about is the content of the rules. SIM says 200 jumps for camera, you say it should be 100 (or 50). 200 for wingsuit, you say 150. Etc. Or perhaps you're saying it shouldn't be number-based, it should be based on demonstrated skill. So instead of lashing out that people are "trying to stop everyone from doing what they want to do" or trying to take away their fun, why not put forth a cogent argument on why the limits should be lowered, if you feel they should be, or that the content of the rule should be changed from jump numbers to demonstrated skills or whatever?

Another reason might be a potential deterrent effect. I have not been around long enough to know if this happens, but I imagine that if people get grounded, and it's publicized (or even just spread via rumor), maybe other jumpers might think, hmm, maybe I shouldn't do that (either because it's more dangerous than I thought, or because I just don't want to get grounded). Just a thought, dunno how valid.

Yeah, these guys had a blast.

I believe you, but this still sound wrong to me. How could the government REQUIRE Youtube to put a video back up? Can't Youtube (google, now) remove a video for any reason whatsoever, including because someone had erroneously complained a copyright violation?

I haven't read or really thought about the DMCA in years, but how could the act require them to restore it? Aren't they private companies, able to remove what they choose for whatever reason they choose?

As someone who is not the best lander himself, I'd recommend that you instead find a moderately windy day, like 10mph or so. In my experience, you'll land a lot softer than if you try to land on a no-wind day. (Assuming, of course, you land into the wind.)

Because this is what happens when guys talk about things OTHER than the game . . .

I don't think anyone will say that experienced people can't get hurt. Just like no one can honestly say that inexperienced people will DEFINITELY get hurt if they continue doing what they're doing. It's a question of probabilities. A person with more experience is more likely to be able to react correctly. A person with less is less likely. But neither is guaranteed. To put in different terms, if a first-year med student, after taking anatomy, wanted to do a tricky surgery, I assume you would say no. "But I know where all the organs are, and I can do it," the student might say. Maybe so. But will that student know what to do when something goes wrong? He might. But he might not. Will an experienced surgeon know what to do when something goes wrong? He might. He might not. Who is more LIKELY to know? Would you let the first-year med student try the surgery? Or would you categorically forbid it, no matter how smart the first-year seemed to be?

Since you replied to my post . . . Someone had already given the answer. Someone else didn't understand the answer. So I tried to clarify. Don't see how that's such a bad thing. Dunno what you wanted an "unbiased" sample for, and I'm sorry that you were unable to get one, but this problem has been around since 1975, and even has its own wikipedia page.

Think about it like this: Out of the three, one of the rigs is good, two are bad. What are the odds that you picked the good one the first time? As you've noted, 1 out of 3. Okay. No matter what you've picked, I can always point to a bad rig -- if you picked right the first time, both remaining rigs are bad, and if you picked wrong the first time, there's still one remaining rig that's bad. With me so far? So you pick. Two possibilities -- you picked right the first time, you picked wrong the first time. If you picked right the first time, then when I point to a bad rig, and ask if you want to switch to the third rig, switching would be the wrong choice, because the third rig is also bad. If you picked wrong the first time, then when I point to a bad rig, and ask if you want to switch to the third rig, switching would be the right choice, because the third rig is the good rig. So it boils down to: if you picked right the first time, switching is bad. If you picked wrong the first time, switching is good. What are the chances that you picked right the first time? 1 out of 3. What are the chances that you picked wrong the first time? 2 out of 3. So 2 out of 3 times, switching is better. If that's still messing with your head, try this instead: There are 100 rigs. 99 are packed with double mals. One is guaranteed to open. You pick one. I honestly point out 98 of the remaining 99 that are bad and ask if you want to switch to the one remaining. Do you switch?

Speaking purely mathematically, while it's true that every time you jump your odds are reset, and a single jump carries the same risk at the beginning of your career as at the end, it's also true that your overall risk increases the more you jump. An easy way to illustrate this is thinking of a deck of cards. Are you more likely to draw the Ace of Spades if I gave you one chance or 100 chances? The chance on any individual draw (assuming randomized cards) is 1 out of 52, or roughly 2%. But with 100 chances, the chance that you will draw the Ace of spades is 1 - (51^100/52^100) or roughly 86%. I agree that if you reach the 99th draw without having drawn the Ace of Spades, the chances of you getting it on the 100th draw are the same as the chances of you getting it on the first draw, i.e. roughly 2%. But the more you draw, the more you increase the overall likelihood you'll pull the Ace of Spades. Similarly, all things being equal, the more you jump the more likely you'll die or be injured, even though each jump carries the same likelihood (again, speaking only mathematically).

I do, but I'm not sure you see mine. I was trying to make two points. The first was, if you can clear the landing area, that's great, and I think you should try to do it. At places like Elsinore, sometimes you can. Maybe at other places, it's less of a concern (because the main landing area is so huge), or less possible. The second point, though, was, regardless of whether you can clear the landing area, I am not comfortable doing something that will prevent me from keeping track of people landing for too long. So even though I have many more steps in my routine after I land, and may take more total time than someone who is just setting their brakes, the point is, each of the steps in my routine takes several seconds only, and in between, I have time to look for canopies. Whereas setting one brake takes me maybe twice or three times as long as removing my booties. Granted, that's still only maybe 10 or 15 seconds total time that I'm not paying attention (or paying lesser attention). But it still seems an unnecessary risk to me, for not much gain. In the end, as I'm sure you know and will agree, skydiving is about choices. I have not been around long enough to give any definitive opinion about whether people should set their brakes in the landing area. I will only say that, at least at this stage of my skydiving career, I would not do it because I feel it leaves me inattentive for too long of a time. I'll give one more, sort-of-related anecdote. When I first started jumping with booties, I experimented with removing them after opening but before landing. The idea was that landing on them would wear them out quicker, especially if I was running out a landing or, ended up sliding on my feet. After two or three times of removing them, I stopped. The reason is because I found that I was focusing too much on removing my booties, and not so much on the canopy traffic around me. It took me 10 or 15 seconds to remove a bootie, and some concentrated effort. I never had a really close call, but once somebody flew by me (at a safe distance) and I hadn't even noticed the canopy was coming my way. But had that jumper been similarly inattentive, and maybe 50 or 100 feet closer, someone might now be using me as an example of why we need to pay attention at all times while under canopy. Things happen faster in the air than in a landing area, because in the air both canopies are moving towards each other at 15+ or however many mph, and on landing, at least one party is mostly stationary. So it's not a great analogy. But it's another reason that I tend to not like doing things that distract my attention for too long, until I'm safely out of the landing area.

That's why I said "I guess it depends on where you jump. At Elsinore . . ." (And yes, I know how many jumps I have. I'm honestly not quite sure why it's relevant here -- are you saying I therefore know less than you (which I freely admit) or are you saying that therefore I shouldn't compare what I do with what OP does or should do, or something else?) Well, you have many more jumps than I. But, in my newbie opinion, if it's possible that you can clear out of the landing area before others land, that's a good idea. If you CAN'T clear the landing area before people land, then I would think you should pay as much attention as possible to where others are landing, and not be worrying about setting brakes. As you say "the OP is a new jumper". How long does it take her to properly set a brake? (No disrespect intended to the OP.) But I imagine it might take a little time to make sure there are no twists, to put the toggle in its slot, and to stow the excess brake line. What you suggest (paying attention to my surroundings) is what I do before taking off my helmet, or taking my earplugs out, or removing my booties. And if I could set my brakes in the same amount of time that it took me to do each of those things, perhaps I'd set them while in the landing area too. And if you can, and OP can, then great. Have at it. No, my sequence is usually something like: Land. Make sure my canopy collapses. Look around for canopies. Take off booties. Look around for canopies. Take off helmet. Look around for canopies. Take out and store ear plugs. Look around for canopies. Put helmet sideways on my head and gather canopy. Look around for canopies. Put helmet in hand that's not carrying canopy and start walking towards the packing area. Look around for canopies. Some of those "look around for canopies" may be omitted if there's obviously no one close. And if in looking for canopies, I see someone coming in on final close to me, I'll freeze or move, depending on what their trajectory looks like it's gonna be. In my 300-jump experience, it takes me significantly longer to set the brakes than any of the tasks that I do between looking for canopies. If, in your 4900-jump experience it does not, then great. But for me, it makes sense to not set the brakes in the landing area, so that: (a) I'm not distracted when setting the brakes; and (b) there's less chance of interfering with someone's landing while my attention is diverted. If everyone has already landed, or will land before I could possibly move, then I might set the brakes in the landing area after I knew everyone was on the ground. (Even then, I might not, if I was at a DZ with two planes (like Elsinore). Last Sunday I was one of the first ones out on my load, and, after I pulled and looked around, I wondered how all these other jumpers had gotten below me. I then realized they were people landing from the previous load that had gone up 10 minutes before mine.) When analyzing an incident, I often hear skydivers discuss breaking a link in the chain of events. To me, being inattentive in the landing area could be such a link. Perhaps unlikely -- you're not inattentive for that long, maybe, or you'd hear the wooshing of a canopy coming in and look up, or you'd hear a jumper saying MOVE. But maybe. Why risk it? What's the benefit other than saving maybe 10 or 20 seconds per jump?

I guess it depends on where you jump. At Elsinore, there have been more than a few times where, if my group was first out, I am off the main landing area before the last fun jumper has landed. There have been lots of times where I've been off the main landing area before the tandems have landed (they also land in the main landing area). I would imagine that setting the brakes (especially if you're looking for twists before you set them) will take SOME amount of concentration, no matter how little. That's time and brain power that's not spent looking for canopies coming down. So it would seem to me to make more sense to stash the toggles (I put them in the loops where I stow the excess brake lines), gather up my 'chute, and head towards the packing area, while scanning the sky for jumpers who are landing. Once in the packing area, I can untwist and set the brakes in an unhurried manner, and without having to worry (as much) about a jumper flying by and kicking me in the head.

I did. You said that: (a) the student would have more time to prepare for landing and presumably deal with a two out; and (b) the student should have acted by then, and at that point, the CYPRES is the last hope. While that makes sense to me, what I don't understand is why you would then wait until 750 feet if the student is going above 78 mph. I would have no question if the CYPRES went off at 1000 feet for students if the descent rate is above 29 mph, period. But CYPRES has decided to split activation rates. So my question was, and is, if you're going to do that, it seems like it should be split the other way. Why isn't it? Thank you. Oh, is that how a CYPRES works. If so, then what is the point of waiting until 750 feet to cut the loop if the student is going faster than 78 mph? I would think that, in that scenario, the student is in a deeper world of shit, and the time for waiting to see if the student will pull is gone, gone, gone. Why not cut the loop at 1000 feet in that scenario? Right. But that doesn't answer the question -- if you're splitting the altitudes at which activation occurs, why 750 feet for 78+ mph and 1000 feet for 29 to 78 mph? Did I ever say students shouldn't use CYPRESes because the logic didn't make sense? Did I say I wanted to change my CYPRES (which is an expert CYPRES, so no, I don't have a problem with the logic behind it)? No. I'm asking a question about why things are done a certain way. I'm perfectly willing to believe that CYPRES has a good reason to make student CYPRESes do what they do. But since I couldn't figure out what that reason was, I thought I'd ask the online skydiving community.

It would seem to me that a CYPRES firing when you have a malfunctioning or partially malfunctioning canopy overhead could also potentially kill or maim you by causing an entanglement, or a bad two out situation. So, in this scenario, what I'm not getting is why you wouldn't want to have the CYPRES fire at 750 instead of 1000, to give the student slightly more time to work the problem out. In the same vein, I don't understand why you wouldn't want the student CYPRES to fire a little higher if the student is in freefall. I would think that if the student is going over 78 mph at 1000 feet, chances are, (s)he hasn't pulled and isn't going to be pulling. So why not give the reserve that slightly extra chance to come out? So I guess I still don't get it. (I mean, I understand HOW it works. I just don't understand WHY the decisions were made the way they were.)

So, I read in the incidents forum (and confirmed in the CYPRES manual) that a student CYPRES fires at: 750 feet if the jumper is falling at over 78 mph, but 1000 feet if the speed is between 29mph and 78 mph. (CYPRES manual says the student CYPRES "activates the release unit when it detects a rate of descent higher than 29 mph (13 meters per second). The activation altitude is split. In the case of rate of descent being approx. that of free fall, the opening altitude is at approx. 750 feet (the same as with Expert CYPRES). However, should the rate of descent be lower than that of freefall but still above the limit of 29 mph (e.g. with partially opened canopy, or after a cutaway), then Student CYPRES activates the release unit when the altitude falls below approx. 1000 feet (approx. 300 meters) above ground level.") I don't understand the logic behind that. It seems reversed. Could someone explain? It would seem to me that there are these possible scenarios: 1. No pull. Jumper will be at over 78 mph at both 750 and 1000 feet. Seems better to fire at 1000 feet. 2. Low pull. Say at 1500 feet. Jumper slows down as the canopy snivels and opens. In that situation, it seems you would not want a CYPRES fire. But it seems more likely that you will be under 78 mph but over 29 mph at 1000 feet. So, seems better to have it set to fire at 750 feet if you're going over 29 mph at that point -- not 1000 feet. 3. Normal pull, but with mal and cutaway. In that situation, if the jumper has not slowed to under 78 mph by 1000 feet, it seems better to fire the CYPRES then. 4. Normal pull, but with a problem or mal and no cutaway. In that situation, if the jumper is falling at less than 78 mph but more than 29 mph, wouldn't you want to give the jumper the most time to work the problem out, or decide to cut away? So why have it set to fire at 1000 feet in that situation?

I am not a copyright lawyer. But two potential issues: 1. I believe that regardless of profit, the creator of a work still has the right to decide what it's used for, at least unless there is a "fair use" defense (which I don't think there is, here). Otherwise, non-profits all over the world could have Mickey Mouse promoting their cause, etc. 2. There IS a potential profit for Alti-2 -- some people might be more likely to buy an Alti-2 because Alti-2 will customize the dial face. Even though Alti-2 says that the Alti-2 price is the same, and the customization is free, really they're just making you pre-pay the customization charge, whether you're going to use it or not. So, if Alti-2 agrees to do this, they are, in a sense, making money off of Apu. And it's just not worth the potential lawsuit from Fox. My $0.02. Again, I am not a copyright lawyer.

I think danielcroft's question might be a little different: Say that, intending to kill you, I damaged your rig in a very obvious and visible way. Say I cut the leg straps, cut the chest strap, cut the risers, etc. I thought, hah, when he puts this on and jumps out, it'll fall off! But the damage is so visible that it's obvious the rig is not in jumpable condition. In that scenario, even though I committed the actus reus and had the mens rea, would I still be guilty of attempted murder?

No, it's BSBD . . .

So, the doctor said not to worry, that she thinks it was a brachial plexus injury to the C8-T1 nerves. She says it shouldn't prevent me from pulling (what I was worried about) and was likely caused by the trauma of my head hitting whatever it hit on that last jump and tweaking my neck. She recommended 4 weeks off to let it heal. I've already got something scheduled for next weekend, but I'll take this weekend off, and see how I feel after the first jump on the next weekend. Maybe take the rest of the month off after next weekend. Thanks for the replies, and PMs.

We were doing 10-way that day, and I was always one of the later divers, so nothing like that. However, on that last jump, there was a bit of a collision at the door getting out, and my neck got a bit crunched. Thought nothing of it then, but am now wondering. In any case, I decided to see what an MD had to say before my next jump. Appointment this Friday. The right arm feels okay (if still a little sore), but why take the chance.

Hm. My profile says I fly a Sabre 2 190 loaded at 0.92 lbs/ft². So, doing some math, that puts me out the door at 174.8 lbs. Which puts me at roughly 155 lbs, dry. (And it's probably closer to 160 lbs these days.) Not quite sure how you're getting less than 100 pounds, regardless of the level of moisture retention. No doubt upper body strength exercises could help. But this has not happened in the previous 294 jumps, even on the days when I've made 5 or more jumps a day. I've never had trouble flaring the canopy. As others have pointed out, I should probably be more worried about why this happened (which I'm starting to, so thanks to those that pointed out I was worrying about the wrong thing). When I plane out, I think my hands are fairly close the chest (visualizing, now). When I finish the flare, I think my hands go out a little, but not much. But thanks for the tips on flaring, and I will pay more attention to how I'm doing it on my next jumps. If I'm doing it in a way that takes more energy, I'll adjust. No reason to make things harder ;)

Not positive, no, but nothing felt wrong with the brake lines, and nothing seemed wrong with them either, on later examination. On the other hand, this was the fifth jump of the day, and that's not out of line with how many jumps I do, so I don't have a good way to explain the sudden arm weakness either. And my right arm is my dominant arm, which means it should be stronger than my left. I didn't think much of this at the time -- just chalked it up to a long day of jumping -- but, perhaps I should go get my arm checked out. It feels fine now, except for some soreness. But anyway, thanks, everyone, for the replies. If it does ever happen again, I will try to even up my hands, and do the best PLF I can.

Had an interesting thing happen to me this weekend. On landing for my fifth and last jump of the day, I was on final, started planing out at wherever it is I normally plane out, and then, when I went to full flare, found that my right toggle wouldn't go anywhere, because my right arm suddenly did not have the strength to pull it down. Pre-second time this has happened to me in 295 jumps. What ended up happening was that, while my brain was trying to figure out why my right toggle wasn't moving, my left continued according to muscle memory and I finished the flare on the left. Result was that I sort of turned to the left, and tumbled / rolled on my right side on landing. No injuries, just a bit of dirt. One of the times I was very happy to be loaded at less than 1.0 ;) What I'm wondering is, what would have been the correct course of action once I noticed that my right toggle wasn't going anywhere, but my left has already gone down a little? I'm thinking the answer is hold it, and PLF on impact. But curious to hear if others agree, or think it's better to: (a) let my left go back up a little so that it's even with my right or (b) finish the flare on my left and not my right, while continuing to hold my right where it is (in about half brakes) (which is what I did).