ghost47

Quote

I can see where one might not do certain types of dives, bigways or known zoo loads, if one doesn't have an AAD but to say you will not jump no matter what without an AAD is different. To me that is device dependency. If you are not device dependent why not do some two or four ways or a solo? You can still manage your risk without an AAD.

Really what it comes down to is this:

1. Jumping without an AAD is slightly riskier than jumping with an AAD (for regular RW work without swooping -- which is what I do)

2. Is making whatever jump I'm considering worth that extra risk?

3. If the answer is always no under non-extraordinary circumstances (such as a crashing plane), does that mean I am placing myself in situations where I am expecting the AAD to save me?

To me, the answer to question 3 is not automatically "yes". There could be at least two reasons I can think of in which I would refuse to make those jumps. One, the extra risk, however small, is just not worth it to me. Jumping is fun. But the sky will be there tomorrow.

Two, there's a tendency to build up bad habits -- nothing happened to me on this jump without an AAD. And I made the jump because my team was counting on me -- it was the last jump and we were behind by two points!

Over time, that slips to: well, we've been practicing really hard, the meet is next weekend, and it's the last jump of the day. And then: well, the meet is next month, and I can't get another AAD until after that. Etc.

To prevent that slide, I might choose just to make a hard-and-fast rule in the beginning -- even if, in reality, the extra risk of doing a solo jump with no Cypres is very slight.

There might be other reasons.

My only point is that one (device dependency) does not necessarily follow the other (refusing to jump without an AAD).

Quote

for the sake of this post, I would say dude, man up! Your fear is in control of you and you are making excuses for it.

I'm not sure what that even means. Yes, I'm afraid of dying or being seriously injured. Yes, I take steps to minimize the risk of that happening. No, I don't feel that one jump (no matter the circumstances, unless they involve a crashing plane) is worth jumping without an AAD when I have an ability to get an AAD given a week or two (or three).

If that makes me less of a skydiver in your eyes, oh well.

Quote

I suppose my view is bit different. I did my AFF with an Astra then spent the next 100 jumps without an AAD. Did eventually end up purchasing one and yes I prefer to jump with one but will not ground myself solely becuase I do not have it. Personally I think everyone should be comfortable jumping without one and have. Skydiving is a dangerous sport but it's also about personal responsibility for your life, not dependence on devices.

Just to be clear, I don't think it's WRONG to jump without an AAD. It's only that I would probably not do it (and even if I would, I certainly wouldn't blame or think badly if a teammate of mine decided not to).

What I meant previously by semantics is this: if you mean we should not depend on the AAD in the sense that we should not put ourselves in situations where we think, "it's okay, if that happens, the AAD will save me," then I wholeheartedly agree. One should always assume the AAD will fail and plan accordingly.

But despite this assumption and planning, one might still find oneself in a position where an AAD will save one's life. I think everyone can agree that those situations can occur to even the most safety-conscious and meticulous skydiver out there.

If one feels that one jump, or a series of jumps (even if at a competition, or in the midst of serious training) is not worth risking those certain situations, I don't think that's wrong -- it's a personal choice. Nor do I think that's being device-dependent. Rather, I think it's just making a different choice based on perceived risk.

Quote

If you would rather abandon your teammates than jump a rig without an AAD then yes you are device dependent. I can understand this choice when there is no on else depending on you but once you commit to a team then you have to accept that not everything will always be perfect when you jump. If you can't accept this then I hope you never get on a team because who knows, your team mate may very well accidently kick you in the head on exit and knock you out and your Cypress may fail to fire.

This is semantics.

Of course I accept that my teammate, the pilot, another skydiver, my own stupidity, or something else might kill me. I do what I can to minimize that risk. Including jumping with an AAD.

Any team I would be on would be told I wouldn't jump without an AAD, it's not like I would hide it. And if they don't want to jump with me, that's up to them.

For the record, at an SSL competition, one of my teammate's was jumping a rig with a freefly tuck-tab. It came out, and she was a bit uncomfortable with it. The cameraguy told her not to worry about it, it just made it like a regular hacky, but she was still uncomfortable. Ultimately, after one go around, we got it fixed, and we jumped, but had she not gotten it fixed and decided she was uncomfortable jumping the rig like that, I would have supported her decision to ride the plane down. To me, the most important thing is that every teammate is satisfied with their gear. I would rather forfeit the chance of a medal than have a teammate jump with misgivings.

Quote

Just an example, you and your 4way team go away to train for a week and half way through, for what ever reason you normal rig becomes unavailable, maybe lost the main after a chop. Your team mate offers you his spare rig only it has no AAD. Do you refuse to jump. Is that the end of your teams training camp, fly home early better luck next year?

The real answer is I would decide then (and might very well refuse to jump), but for the sake of the post, let's say the answer is yes, I would refuse to jump, and that would be the end of our team's training.

Quote

That is called device dependancy and that person is exactly 100% device dependant, no AAD no jump.
That is not making a choice, that is fear making the choice for the person.
Whats wrong with making a risk assessment of the type of jump you're planning on doing, look at the skill level of the other participants in that dive, is it well planned, dirt dived, creeped, can everyone on this dive track well?
If the answer is no then perhaps you should not be on that jump regardless of whether or not you have and AAD.

But you see, some of us make the risk assessment that we CAN'T control everything. The jump may be well-planned, we all may be able to track far and in differing directions, and something may STILL go wrong. Maybe some freeflier not on my team exits 1 second after I do, and then comes crashing into me.

In those situations, a Cypres may not matter or may not save my life. But it might. After considering the factors, my assessment is that a jump without a Cypres is riskier than a jump with a Cypres. So yes, 99.9% of the time, if I did not have an AAD, I would not jump.

(If you're going to ask further, what would happen if all AADs stopped working, the answer is I would still jump, but that, to me, is a different question.)

Quote

I trust my ability to asses risk and act in the correct way to save my life when required more that a device with no real intelligence.

So do I. And that includes BEFORE getting on the plane.

I am in no way advocating one depend on an AAD in the sense of acting in a riskier manner, or waiting around for it to fire. But I think it's possible to refuse to jump without an AAD, and not do those things.

Quote

That right there tells me you do not understand the purpose of a cypress. Your statement is FALSE. It may save your life but there is NO guarantee it will fire or even fire in time. And it can still kill you as well.

That right there tells me you didn't do more than skim my post. I know it's false. And what I said was I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT THIS. Even though I won't jump without a Cypres.

Quote

There is a difference between jumper A not wanting to jump without an AAD but probably would if required, and jumper B who would never jump without one.
Jumper A understands the risk and makes a choice.
Jumper B is usually some one who has not seen and accepted that skydiving is risk sport that requires participants to be continually responsible for their own survival.

Why can't Jumper B be someone who understands the risk but have chosen to not take the risk of jumping without an AAD?

I recognize that skydiving can kill or maim me, because I might mess up, or, even if I don't, someone else might. Or, even if no one else does, skydiving can be chaotic, and maybe something renders me unconscious.

So, I choose not to jump without an AAD. I have never, ever thought to myself, meh, I don't have to track too far, 'cause if I run into my teammate and lose consciousness, my CYPRES will work. Or: tail? Who cares? If I get knocked out, the CYPRES will save my life.

CAN one become dependent on the CYPRES and have it affect one's own preparedness? Sure. But if someone won't jump without a CYPRES, does it mean that that MUST be the case? I wouldn't say that.

Quote

Then why would SE file for bankruptcy, if not to protect themselves from a pending lawsuit and/or judgment.

I don't know. There is no judgment against them according to the papers posted in this thread, but filing bankruptcy does stay the pending lawsuit against them. It doesn't make it go away, but it gives Strong a chance to catch its breath and assess what to do next. It's possible that they had paid their attorneys $X to do the summary judgment motion, and, now that that has failed, their attorneys have asked for $Y more to do the next phase, either prepare for trial or appeal the trial court's ruling. Maybe Strong doesn't have $Y right now, or doesn't want to spend $Y right now, and filing bankruptcy gives them time to think.

Or it could be that the bankruptcy is not related, that Strong simply has debts greater than their assets.

But this is all speculation. All that I can say for sure is based on the documents posted in the thread, the lawsuit against Strong by the estate of the TI passenger is not over, all that has happened is that the Court has said I can't grant you victory (except for on two claims) as a matter of law, you still need to go through trial.

Quote

So the short version is that due to a TI's negligence and Strong's knee jerk reaction (the Y-strap), Strong lost the lawsuit and has now filed bankruptcy?

Strong has not lost the lawsuit. Strong apparently moved for summary judgment. What that basically means is that Strong is asking the Court to find that, based on all the facts which are undisputed, no reasonable jury could find Strong liable.

What the Court said was, mostly, I don't think so. I'm not saying you're liable, I'm not saying you're not, I'm just saying that, considering only the facts that are undisputed, I can't say that no reasonable jury could find against you. So I can't grant your motion, and you will have to have this resolved at trial.

What it seemed to come down to was whether it was foreseeable that someone would misuse the Strong harness in the way it was misused. The Court said that it couldn't say that no reasonable jury would find that it was foreseeable.

Quote

OK.....but this guy, the OP, stated he had some serious instability issues and had "blacked out". I'm asking....thank god for this flame suit and high end sponge bob helmet...if the Cypres had fired at 3k ft would he have had time to land safely?

If the Cypres had fired at 3000 feet, and the OP had regained consciousness much earlier, probably he would have had time to unstow brakes, steer, and flare. Hopefully that would have helped him land safely.

However, that's not the point. Think about what happens in a skydive. Most of us pull between 2000 and 4000 feet. So if you assume that it takes 500 feet for us to slow past the AAD firing speed, the AAD can't be set to fire anywhere between 1500 to 3500. If it were, we'd have two out all the time.

So say we set the AAD to 750 feet less than our pull altitutde. Now imagine that we have some high-speed malfunction (or even a slow snivel), such that, even after pulling the main, we are still at speeds high enough to activate the AAD. So, while dealing with a high speed malfunction, suddenly our reserve fires. Perhaps into a malfunctioning main that we haven't cut away yet, and we now have no functioning parachutes and we die.

Not a good result.

The other thing to understand is that the AAD does not know if you have a malfunctioning main, if you are unconscious, or what. All it knows is how fast you're falling at a certain speed at a certain altitude.

So the AAD is set to fire at the lowest altitude possible where it's still likely to be useful. The point is to give you every chance to slow yourself down, because you are smarter than the AAD, and you can generally make a better decision as to whether firing the reserve is better than not firing the reserve. But the reason we have a Cypres which will fire at 750 feet no matter what is that, in general, if you are still falling at 78 mph or above at 750 feet, you are probably in a situation where you are incapable of making the decision or getting the reserve out, and so Cypres does it for you.

Quote

WHAT SIZE SHOULD I BUY!?

Brian Germain's downsizing chart is a good guide, and can be found here:

http://www.bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf

Quote

Jesus... I asked the rigger that sold me that reserve about it and he told me it wouldnt be a problem... good thing I used paypal and he agreed upon a return...

Should I return the thing and ground myself until I get the cash for a new reserve?

I've gotta ask -- why are you willing to listen to people here about your reserve and not your main?

Quote

IMHO we all should do our best to make Skyride go away.

It occurs to me that Skyride sites usually have an 800 number to call. It further occurs to me that 800 numbers are toll-free, but the other side has to pay for them -- plus, there are only a limited number of lines to take those calls.

I wonder what would happen if hundreds of skydivers with landlines suddenly started auto-dialing those 800 numbers multiple times per day, maybe concentrating on one metropolitan area at a time.

Quote

To jump a 150 The USPA downsizing chart recommends a minimum of 40 jumps for the lowest wing loading on the chart.
http://www.4xtremetime.com/...les/USPADOWNSIZE.pdf

This is Brian Germain's downsizing chart, I believe (though a slightly different version than the one he currently has up).

You weigh 165. Your exit weight is around 187. You have 40 jumps. According to the chart you should be jumping a 210, or a 182 at most.

THEN, the chart says: "Increase surface area one size (15 - 20 sq ft) for each increment of 2500 feet of altitude." Mile-Hi is about 5000 feet above sea level. So that means add 30 - 40 sq ft.

Meaning, according to the chart, you should be jumping, a 240 to 250, or, at most, a 210 to 220. You are, instead, jumping a 159. Which, according to the chart, does not become potentially appropriate until around 340 jumps.

You are free to ignore the chart, and, as I said, if your instructors and DZO and S&TA have signed off on your choice of canopy size, then I hope all goes well.

One other thing -- as has been mentioned in many other threads, the question is not whether you can safely land a 159 on a straight approach into the wind. The question is whether you can safely land it when the wind shifts and suddenly you're going downwind, or the spot is off and you have only a small space to put the canopy down, or the myriad scenarios that will occur as you continue jumping. It is for those situations that people recommend more conservative canopies.

Quote

The ONLY advice I gave was in post #29 when I said. "I hope any nubies such as myself will read all the replies and if their considering buying a new canopy will at least try a couple different ones before simply ordering a Saber2 because their popular."

There was also post 5 . . .

Quote

Please people ride some other canopies first, guarantee you will find something you like better than the Saber2.

In any case, I think all the salient points have been made. Me personally, I think the more disturbing thing is not your opinion of Sabre2s (which, as you mention, many people apparently share), it's your wingloading in your environmental conditions at your jump numbers. But if your instructors and the DZO and S&TA have signed off on it, then good luck with it, and I hope it all goes well.

Quote

I weigh 165 and have down sized to a 170 and just bought a 159. Again doesn't seem too fast to me.

Greeaaatttt . . . Now you just opened that whole OTHER can of worms . . .

http://www.bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf

Quote

Do you guys not see that I'm using my resources and learning?

I think it's great that you're seeking information and are not moving to a stiletto. I think what has some people worried are statements like:

"Too bad I'm smart and won't be getting hurt."

And:

"I understand dude, I don't think you have to take it that far."

And:

"I can handle a 150 perfectly"

Because similar statements are often made by people who don't appreciate the dangers of skydiving, or think those dangers are exaggerated, and, as a result, don't take enough precautions and then end up getting seriously injured or dying.

Just because other people have said similar things and then died doesn't mean that you will get hurt or die. It's perfectly possible that you are an exception to the rule, or that in actuality, even though you make statements that raise the hackles on the necks of people who have been around a while (of which I am not one, by the way), you are actually a safe skydiver. It's also possible that you're not -- I have no idea, having never met you, and being enough of a newbie that my judgment on your skills would be mostly worthless anyway.

But I think what people are reacting to is a perceived attitude that you should move on from this canopy to another canopy because you're already proficient on your current canopy, or because it's hard to pack. And a perceived attitude that, after 30 jumps, you already "know" that you can handle your canopy perfectly in all situations.

If that's not actually your attitude, then I think a lot of this criticism is misplaced (though understandable). If it is your attitude, then I hope you re-read this thread and really think about it.

No matter what, it's ultimately your life, your body, your (and your DZO's / S&TA's) decision. Good luck!

Hey 8888,

Can you do all this?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=47

If not, stick with your current canopy until you can.

Quote

Ive started getting nosebleeds after ive made a jump - when i say this, i dont mean i have blood pouring out of my nose, but after making a jump, every time i blow my nose for the next half an hour you can pretty much guarantee that there is gonna be blood in there! Can feel the pressure in the top of my nose when climbing to altitude.... quite curious to know if anyone else gets this or if im on my own here!

The one time this happened to me was because I was skydiving while my sinuses weren't clear. I felt pressure in my head during the jump (first time that had happened), but I chalked it up to not having blown my nose, which I remedied after I landed. No blood.

I went up another time, and again felt pressure during the dive. And this time, I had blood in my phlegm. Lasted a week or two.

Now if I have a cold, I don't skydive. If I'm recovering or have even a little bit of a stuffy nose, I pop a Sudafed.

Do you feel pressure in your head during the jump? Or just on the climb to altitude?

Quote

Exactly...a 'Professional' class for lack of a better term.

There is nothing wrong with being a world class!

But lets consider a more level playing field for those grass roots members of our sport that may aspire to be classified that eventually...

...however, currently would like to participate in a national venue in which they may actually have a chance of winning.

I don't know that this would work.

Say you have a professional class for sponsored folk. Then wouldn't some who are in the Open class complain about those rich skydivers who can afford to do two hours of tunnel per month? It's not fair to pit them against those who can barely scrape together enough money to make 10 jumps a month. There should be an income-based class. Then others may grumble that, well, they come from the northeast, and they can't compete with those SoCalers who can jump year-round. Etc.

Besides, there are already two classes that do the same jumps, no? Open and Advanced. If a team feels like they'll get crushed in Open and want a chance at winning, they can jump in Advanced. (Of course then the current Advanced class might get discouraged.)

I think, in the end, you're never going to have a level playing field. There will always be another team with better resources, better equipment, better weather, or what have you. So, in the end, you hunker down, do the best you can, and be glad that you got to skydive at Nationals.

Or so go my thoughts.

Quote

To be quite honest I'm not sure why one wouldn't automatically reach for the reserve - if its a faster deployment and there's less chance of having 2 canopies out! The reserve handle isn't difficult to find? its just a matter of reaching for the handle and giving it a good yank! ... right?

For newer jumpers like you and me, it's almost certain that every jump has consisted of us reaching for and tossing out our pilot chute of our main canopy. In our minds, PULL = REACH FOR PILOT CHUTE AND THROW.

So imagine you've just realized you're at 1500 feet. You think "OH SHIT, I NEED TO PULL" and you likely will automatically reach for your pilot chute. (I would in fact, lay even money that you might even wave off.) In 1 second (or 2 if you've waved off), your pilot chute will be out, and your main will be sniveling.

Imagine instead after "OH SHIT, I NEED TO PULL" you think, "reserve or main? I'm at 1500, go for reserve!" So you reach for reserve in terminal, something you've never done before, and you pull. How long did all that take?

So the question is, which is faster:

1. Pull pilot for main, main snivels and opens.

2. Remember to pull reserve, find reserve, pull reserve, reserve snivels and opens.

Do whichever one you think is faster.

(The preceding analysis doesn't take into account an AAD and the danger of two out. You also need to factor in whether you're jumping a student or expert AAD.)

Quote

Your reasoning is very sound and don't for a second think that any of my comments are an atempt to change your decisions.

Oh, feel free to try to change my decisions. I fully recognize that I have limited experience, and that better decisions are made with more data. It's still my choice at the end of the day, after all. But reading your post and other posts have persuaded me that it probably wouldn't take me very long at all to differentiate between a bag lock and a pilot-chute-in-tow, so I can at least take out that factor.

Quote

According to ghost47’s profile, the guy your post was replying to, he has 240 jumps, 2 yrs in the sport, and only 78 posts to DZ.com. At this point I would strongly agree with you, he should be easily able to tell the difference between a PC in tow and a bag lock, even if neither of them stands him up. I will however caution that no matter how much you educate students, some of them will still follow up with questions that will baffle you. The possibility of mis identifying a PC in tow and a bag lock is one of the reasons I teach to cut either away. Just my opinion.

My profile is accurate -- I do have 240 jumps. It's actually closer to 1.5 years in the sport (first jump in May 2008), but there was no option for half years.

I don't doubt that I could tell the difference between a bag lock and a pilot chute in tow by looking at them. What I'm wondering is, how long would it take me to do so? (I've never seen either in the air, only on youtube vids or those pictures of mals you see in class.) In other words, I'm thinking the sequence goes something like:

Arch, reach, pull

Realize I'm not being pulled vertical

Twist, to look over my shoulder (and possibly dislodge the pilot chute from my burble)

See mostly sky, and no opening canopy -- how long would it take to make sure there is no flying black bag? Half a second? One second? Two seconds?

At half a second, it would be quicker to realize there is no bag lock, and pull the reserve. At two seconds, maybe it would be quicker (or at least the same speed) to cut-away and pull reserve as soon as I saw no opening canopy.

(This is not to say that there might not be other reasons not to cut away before pulling reserve. I'm just wondering about the argument that it's quicker to not cut away.)

Quote

But what if you're not in doubt? In our family, we train to simply pull the reserve for a pilot chute in tow.

The pilot chute in tow is in a gray area between a total malfunction and a partial malfunction. That's the reason for the debate on how to handle it.

For a true total malfunction, nothing out at all, were you trained to pull both handles or just the reserve?

I think the question a lot of newer jumpers (like me) have is: how do you know immediately that you have a pilot-chute-in-tow? For example, couldn't it also be a bag lock? With a bag lock, the correct solution is to cut away and then pull reserve, right?

I agree that there's no question that cutting away and pulling reserve will take more time than just pulling reserve. But I would also think that determining whether you have a pilot-chute-in-tow or bag lock will also take a second or two. If so, then it would seem to make sense that one's EPs for "I've pulled the pilot chute and I'm still in freefall" is:

1. Twist a bit and look up to see if there's anything opening (and also to possibly dislodge the pilot chute from your burble, if that's the problem).

2. If you don't see an opening canopy, cut away and pull reserve.

It would seem to me that the time it takes to cut away is approximately equal to the time for your brain to process whether you've got a black bag floating around up there or nothing -- whereas recognizing that you don't have an opening canopy is a lot easier.

Just my thoughts -- I could be wrong.

Quote

No no.. I mean when you set up your profile, you have to select all this stuff about your ideal match and rate it's importance.. So I answered all the questions, but none of the questions were about the stuff I really care about.. Anyway.. How does one filter and search on personality?? Doesn't seem to work.

Ya, it can be difficult. Especially because in online dating, everybody and their mother has a sense of humor, loves to laugh, and likes long walks on the beach. Sometimes you can tell a little about their personality by how they write their profile, but really, nothing beats meeting in person and having a conversation. The problem of course is that this takes time, and you can easily meet a lot of incompatible people before you find a good one (if you ever do).

Maybe try keyword searching on things that you enjoy? Skydiving / parachuting / yoga / whatever. There' a decent chance that if someone likes what you like, they might also have similar personality traits.

Quote

I've done a bunch of searches, but am not having much luck. Yes, I've taken the lead and messaged some people.. Still finding it hard to "read" people's personalities online.. For obvious reasons, I'm reluctant to give away personal info like my phone number, because I think there could be some scary people on there.. Maybe the trick is to go on some coffee dates??

I think coffee dates are a good idea. It's not a lot of time, and if there's something there, you can make plans for a further date, and if there isn't, then after you finish your cup of coffee you can say thanks, and just walk out.

Good luck!