pchapman

Good stuff to see the USPA definitions.

They are still very general and need instructors to fill in what they really mean in practice.

The Decision Altitude needs the added discussion about how we're usually talking about whether to cut away (rather than than taking some other action), and the ability to make a decision both before that altitude, and after it, if you unfortunately get to that point.

The Hard Deck according to the USPA can be used for various types of minimum altitudes, so if being specific one would need to talk about someones cut away hard deck for example, rather than hard deck in general.

Edit: Using the USPA definitions,  one's decision altitude for finishing deciding whether to chop a malfunction can also be one's hard deck for fighting a malfunction!    I think we just have to be a little more specific if talking about these things to an audience where something may be misinterpreted.

I seem to recall we had this big discussion about unclear terminology for hard decks & decision altitudes & cutaways a few years back on dropzone too.

That was in 2018 and back then I referenced the previous big discussion about it in 2014. Stay tuned I guess for a 2026 discussion.

2018 discussion: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/262736-malfunctions-below-your-hard-deck

[Edit *2 : Looks like the 2018 discussion only touches on the unclear terminology. The 2014 also only has limited discussion on this particular subject, so it isn't like it is a good reference.  So I've crossed both links off but left them in here.]

2014 discussion: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/227-hard-deck/

I haven't yet gone back to read all that yet!

I had written: "At least when I checked and posted in 2014, the USPA doesn't define either term." [Edit: See chuckakers below -- there seems to be a definition now]

If we still don't have a good definition from say the USPA that we can start to try following, then we'll just have to be more specific about whatever hard deck or decision altitude we are talking about at any given time.

It sounds like one option that some people like is the "decision altitude" for the higher level, and "hard deck" for the lower level.  Or we need to additionally add more info --  "malfunction decision height" and "cutaway hard deck".  With the obvious caveat that if one is below the decision altitude, one still needs to make a decision. And indeed make a decision if below the hard deck, but a different kind of decision not involving a cut-away.

It takes a little work to explain clearly and unambiguously for the newbies without sounding like the Fandango instructor....

19 hours ago, Baksteen said:

The Dutch rules limit your canopy choice and wingloading based on the canopy model, your total number of jumps, the number of jumps you made in the past twelve months. (https://skydivekompasroos.nl/en/).

Interesting to see those rules! -- including how they classify their canopies into levels 1-7.

But, oh man they're strict. At least regarding recent experience. If that calculator does cover all the parts of the Dutch rules, looks like I could have thousands of jumps on my swooping canopy, and not be allowed to fly it unless I had a hundred jumps in the last year. Or similarly, if a national champion swooper took a break for a year, next year he would be down to flying stuff like a Pilot at 1.05 wing loading max until he built his 1-year jump numbers up. Unless he could grovel for a waiver. Bizarre.

(As we digress from Opening Altitude rules to those about Wingsuits and about Wing Loadings...)

Quote

18 hours ago, nwt said:

Setting a minimum opening altitude is easy. Setting a minimum number of jumps to fly a wingsuit is easy. Coming up with wingloading rules that will work for everyone is hard.

What’s so hard about it?

I don't want to get too far into this argument, but I think the idea is that it is hard to deal with different human performance abilities, that affect landing a parachute, more than it does getting your reserve out in time.   The argument isn't that it is any way hard to write some numbers down on paper.

For minimum opening altitude, even if I'm a shit hot jumper, my reserve opening distance is like anyone else's, my main will snivel as much as anyone else's, and even if I'm skilled, my reflexes aren't going to be that much different than anyone else skilled. So it is easier to set a hard limit, with a few mods for jump numbers or license levels.

(Though one can of course quibble about some situations, eg, "What about if I'm not doing 120 mph but am just doing a hop and pop, and I have a big F-111 canopy that doesn't snivel forever -- aren't slightly lower limits reasonable?")

For landing parachutes at different wing loadings, there it is harder to decide what is appropriate and not just arbitrary, as it is more an issue of experience and skill.

E.g, I and others with significant airplane piloting experience have successfully downsized faster than typical in skydiving -- because high approach speeds and a fine touch on the controls aren't something new to us.      

(Having waivers would  of course allow more flexibility if there otherwise were hard limits on wing loading vs. jumps.)

I'll give you a hint:

There's a copy in the CSPA rigger package handout, or at least there was a while back. Which I have.  Maybe you can find a copy.

(But hey I remember the battles and antagonism in the 1990s between the CSPA organization, and the rival upstart CAPS organization which you guys were an integral part of -- and maybe the founders??   Each side was slagging the other as being full of bullshit.    Yeah I know the membership of CAPS had a wide variety of DZ's in it with differing motivations  -- from Lloyd Kallio's PST using and believing in round parachutes for students right until he retired; to Tom McCarthy of Gananoque who was always a pioneer but liked to go his own way if the CSPA bugged him at any given point; to Beiseker the "Death DZ" as the CSPA editorial put it and thus got sued by the asshole running the place ... who later in turn fled town once there was a legal judgment against him after one of the fatalities. CAPS was quite the mixed bag of those who chose not to join the CSPA for various reasons...)

 Anyway. Deep breath.  Maybe I should let bygones be bygones ... But I think that even though you probably run a great DZ these days.... I'm not comfortable handing you the contents of a CSPA manual given the antagonism your CAPS organization had for the CSPA system.

Someone else is sure to have the old PIA handouts...

Bob Wright, with 15,734 jumps, may be known to some of you out there from having been on a bunch of the World Record RW formations, through to the Thailand 400 way. (Listed formally as Robert Wright in the record.)

He was also a pioneer in Canadian skydiving instruction, being one of the first here to start students on ram-air parachutes (in 1982), and one of the first to do PFF instruction (like the US AFF).

I'm sorry I don't know the precise details!

He ran a small DZ for 40 years, specializing in PFF, with no tandems at all, and I think was always on as many of the PFF instructional jumps he could. That continued right through this year, at age 73, before his unexpected passing.

Bob was my own first jump instructor back in '88.

From his obit online:

Quote

Passed away suddenly in his 73rd year on Monday, September 26, 2022 at home in Grand Bend, Ontario. Beloved husband and best friend of Mary Elizabeth Wright (nee Sutherland).  He is survived and mourned by his sister-in-law and brothers-in-law, Louise (nee Sutherland) and David Stanley of Welland; Hugh Sutherland of Thorold and niece and nephews Kathleen Stanley, Robert Stanley, Connor and Aidan Sutherland.  Predeceased by his parents Lillian Evelyn (nee Richardson) and Robert Howard Wright of Alymer, Quebec.

 

Born in Ottawa, Bob grew up in Aylmer, Quebec and studied at Carleton University, doing graduate studies at Western University, London, in Physics and Computer Science.  Bob became passionate about skydiving with his first jump on October 17, 1970 and never looked back.  He became active in the Canadian Sport Parachuting Association and devoted his life to teaching eager beginners and novices to skydive safely.  Bob was a pioneer who respected his roots and looked ahead to the future.  Large formation skydives were his passion, including the 400-way world record in Thailand in 2006. His motto was "it's always sunny above the clouds".  After 15,734 jumps and 40 years of operating Skydive Grand Bend, he gave many skydivers memories that will last a lifetime.  

 

6 minutes ago, Coz999 said:

Good points but how about the current civ canopies aren’t TSO’d for higher openings, as well as, reserves? Aren’t there warning labels regarding these?

Good point. Can't check now but yes PD is one company that has made some estimates on their data panels. Not sure of their source but they aren't dumb either. (And they also deal with not just say tandem reserves, but military tandem reserves, where higher altitudes may be more of a "thing".)  Maybe someone has a pic to post.

As for the side discussion of "how hard are high altitude openings", I'm guessing the answer is somewhere in the middle. So let's not be too harsh on each other.

We civilians don't know much about it. Standard references like the USPA say to watch out, but aren't there to provide background evidence.

Certainly for standard round parachutes, there's good technical, scientific evidence about much harder openings at high altitudes. True airspeed (for terminal velocity) at 40,000' will be twice what it is at sea level. So there's four times as much energy to dissipate. (Kinetic energy proportional to velocity squared). And maximum opening forces ended up being four times as great too.  And for 25,000', maybe somewhat more than twice as hard an opening. The lower air density also provides less restraint to the parachute filling out sideways and thus 'opening' faster.   This was all in the US military tests reported in the old, classic Theo Knacke book on aerodynamic decelerators. And probably well verified by modern computer models of parachute openings.

BUT THAT DOESN'T FULLY APPLY TO US... We have REEFED parachutes with sliders, and sliders are a well known way to vary the duration of the opening sequence, depending on the speed & pressure of the airflow. The military must have some data out there, but I haven't seen it.

SkypilotA1 provides some personal experience -- although I bet his HAHO square parachutes were probably rather unlike our small ZP sport parachutes. 

So I'm betting "Yes our parachutes will tend to open harder at high altitude so be careful... but not as massively harder as classic round parachute data tells us... but we don't have a lot of good evidence in the civilian world about whether the openings would be tolerably hard or dangerously so." 

Many of us might have had some opening on a regular jump where the opening was harder and maybe we hadn't slowed down enough from say some small-way freefly, so we kind of have a feeling that extra airspeed can make the G loads less comfortable.

(The New Zealand 'discussion paper' - thanks that's interesting.  That's on high altitude tandems and provides some graphs of G loading vs opening altitude, but unfortunately they give no source - other than 'US military' - and no info on types of parachutes, whether or how it was tested, or if they were simulations. The graph lines are all perfectly smooth and idealized. They make the point that one has to be ready for both main or reserve openings, and the hard openings skydivers occasionally get, and how those loads may push up against or cross the types of G loads and thus strengths the systems are tested & certified to.   HOWEVER, I WON'T TAKE THOSE GRAPHS AT FACE VALUE -- they make it sound like every tandem main canopy opening even at 3000' is 5 G, and every reserve opening at terminal is 8G, with loads of 4000 lb on the harness in the latter case if at say 500lb max load for the tandem. Certainly one has to look at the limits -- like a max weight passenger and a bad, hard, asymmetrical reserve opening. But their graphs seem too pessimistic with no quoted source of what the data really applies to.) 

Everyone ride down?  Huh, interesting.

Not the way I've seen it done a couple times over the decades.

Just contain it out of the way and others jump. 

Although admittedly if others jump, that is a bit of a, "Screw you you dumbass, you can sit there white-knuckle clutching your damn parachute, we're going jumping like we planned" move....

Or in more detail, keep door closed, contain the parachute, shuffle the guy to the front of the Caravan for example (far from the door), then the guy stays in the plane (plus an instructor if he's a student), others jump.  It's not hard to hold on to or sit up against a spring loaded PC or a bagged main, holding it against a wall or bulkhead.   Or if it is a C-182, get him to the back corner and the rest could jump. Although there can be variations depending on experience levels, like deciding it is safer just to descend with the full load in the 182, because it is cramped or moving a scared student could be tricky or whatever. 

Sure one is assuming someone else isn't going to take the tail off on that very same jump run and leave the unfortunate jumper with an even crappier than usual situation!

But certainly everyone riding down is a valid thing to do.

I don't have a good answer, but have some partial ones:

1) The new dropzone.com removed the old photo attachments, so I won't even bother to try to find the original post. But way back in 2012 I copied a post on here by Gabor Szelei.   I've put it into a Word file. The descriptions are rather terse so there are still some questions, but that's what I have.

2) And in 2005 I had saved this post, from Sundevil777:

Quote

 

Nov 21, 2005, 4:52 AM

Re: [popsjumper] Anatomy of a Baglock - NEW [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Actually, it doesn't shock me. Your incident reinforces my opinion that tube stows are clearly better for the middle locking stows. The old guy with the big beard thinks so too. Wink

I make my own tube stows really cheap, and make them the length that I need from the bulk silicone tubing you can find in the fishing/sporting goods section of any department store (really cheap per foot).

Use a pair of needlenose pliers to turn one end over about 5mm. Insert the closed pliers into the other end and open the pliers to expand the tubing. Now take a pair of hemostats (sp?) or similar instrument used for other purposes to grab the turned over end of the tubing and insert it into the opened end. Carefully slide the tubing off the pliers and you're done. No need to glue anything.

 

Tube stows - Gabor Szelei 2012.docx

It does look from the video that there was nothing caught up in the reserve, that it was a tension knot all on its own.  A rather unlucky day!

(That's both from the start of the video - with you way off in the distance - and near the end where the camera flyer swoops past you on the ground.)

Tension knots are made more likely (but still very rare) from a bad body position, or even a momentary entanglement with your foot. (As you said initially, after your massive crash you couldn't recall if it had been the main or reserve that was entangled for a moment around your foot.) Parachutes do better when opening symmetrically, and somewhat less so if one side (eg, jumper's shoulder) starts out way lower than the other.

And thus it seems not be have been as I had speculated -- before the photo from the video or the video came out -- that the description sounded like a typical main-reserve entanglement of some sort. Still, it is not impossible that there was some brief interaction / entanglement that hindered the reserve opening, where a very slow extraction from the bag, or interference from a main riser catching lines or whatever, could also have hindered the reserve inflation.

In any case, parachutes do open better when they start with a shoulders level body position, everything symmetrical, with no tumbling of the deployment bag, and the deployment proceeds at a normal rapid pace, so that it is less likely for slack lines to be whipping around that are more likely to cause a tension knot.

Well, congrats. What can I say? Nice that you got things sorted out with the aircraft & bailout oxygen system and in-aircraft procedures THIS time....

While on the rubber band issue, is there any validity in storing them in the freezer?

I knew one long time DZO who did that regularly for many years, perhaps only stopping because it is inconvenient to keep a whole freezer drawer full of a bunch of 1lb bags of rubber bands, and Keener bands lasted well anyways. Certainly chemical reactions are generally reduced at lower temperatures, leading to less aging. But I don't know if there is any moisture content within the elastics that might cause damage from water crystallization. One might also want to air them out after unfreezing to dry them from any condensed moisture on the outside. 

Just wondering how to best store my last remaining big bag of Keener rubber bands, "my preciousss"...   For now I just keep them in the basement where they are cooler.

For the record here it may be worth quoting from Chuting Star, given that Keener Rubber has shut down:

Quote

These heavyweight parachute bands are designed specifically for sport skydiving rigs. Manufactured in the USA from natural crepe rubber (a latex product), these parachute bands are also used by military parachute riggers to hold cord in place when rigging parachutes. They’re ideal for any application requiring a rubber band with good stretch. You can use these to pack your parachute, or simply to manage the paracord you keep in your pack or survival kit. They also loop well on PALS grids for securing necessities like tourniquets.

Note: Keener Rubber supplied the skydiving industry rubber bands for decades, but went out of business in 2021. Since that time, there is only one business manufacturing rubber bands in the sizes/types used in skydiving: Alliance Rubber. There are differences in the process and materials, and we have found that the standard grade rubber bands from Alliance (Sterling Grade) tend to break much faster than those from Keener. Alliance now makes a higher grade Mil-Spec Type 2 rubber band in the most common large size that seems to be closer to what Keener supplied. If you choose the Mil-Spec version for the Large size, you are getting Alliance's Pale Crepe Gold Grade, which contains a higher rubber content. The Tandem and Small are only available in the Sterling/standard grade. Here is more info direct from Alliance on the materials and process:

Keener used both natural and synthetic rubber, just as Alliance does. The big difference in Alliance bands verses the bands you bought from Keener is that they used a “steam cure” process and we use a “salt cure." So our bands are not exactly the same as the bands you were getting from Keener. Steam Cure is a slower process and at different temperatures, which creates a different molecular structure. Our Salt Cure is a continuous process, meaning that the bands will continue to cure as they age and this will impact their elasticity over time. Our compounds are also not an exact match to Keener’s. We used the Keener samples that were provided to match as closely as possible to our Sterling Grade Bands, but again, different proprietary compounds. The Mil-Spec bands come in our Pale Crepe Gold Grade, which contains a higher rubber content. But it is more expensive. 

From: https://www.chutingstar.com/rubber-bands-for-parachute-packing

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Bummer. In a sport that's not for everyone some winnowing is required. Would you rather do it on the phone or on a ladder pulling them out of a tree?

Oh yeah, sometimes a DZ has to listen to their staff, "Stop taking money from this person. It just isn't worth it, they're scaring the instructors as well as wasting our time!"

I was trying to distinguish the truly scary / inept , from others who I think should still get a chance to jump:
(a) those who just want the occasional simple jump within their abilities (e.g., the perpetual static line folks),  (b) those who aren't ready to drop thousands of dollars all at once for some 'full course' (e.g., lots of people who got into the sport more slowly), and (c) students who are slow to learn but not dangerous (e.g., Wendy Faulkner's tale of going from endless student days to world championships level).

54 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

 It's a hard pill to swallow but the reality is that the old SL/IAD programs out of 182's using low time staff and accepting trainees that jump once a month and putting them in the air without a long, solid refresher (that is unaffordable to do on the fee paid) is less safe. 

That gets into the Big DZ vs. Little DZ argument, what is the Best vs. Acceptable.    Some day: "Sorry, no training in this state. You gotta travel to CA or FL for the only DZ's allowed to teach any more. But on the plus side, every instructor has at least a thousand jumps, and many have that much with students alone..."

And the thread is also touching on the argument about "1 jump at a time vs. pay for all the jumps at once".  I know the arguments, but man, not everyone is ready to drop so much money all at once on something they know so little about.

As for Rob's perpetual students:
I have also seen those perpetual students who just come a once or a couple times a year and aren't progressing or don't want to progress. Nothing wrong with it IF the system is ready to handle it, and the students don't actually deserve the bowling speech, and the students pay their way. But if the system isn't ready, then instructors start making themselves scarce when those people show up, because for example some junior jumpmaster is only going to get his usual pittance yet needs to take on a massive retraining of a problem student with no extra pay....

13 hours ago, BurbleBoi said:

Jump 50 something was loaned a Sabre 170 to taste downsizing. First jump, just above pattern height, I decided to try some “reverse turns”. Got a bit too deep on the toggle on the 3rd turn, and it just snapped 360 degrees into a line twist. 
The feeling of being spun up under 1,000’ isn’t something I care to experience ever again.

Ugh, I had something like that, similar canopy, similar size, back when Sabres -- the first common zero-P canopies in North America --  were new in the early 1990's. "One last really good looking set of turns before heading to the pattern." And the canopy started spiralling. Don't know how it got out of multiple twists so fast but I didn't need to do the low pull-both-handles-simultaneously thing.

Those Sabre-class canopies were fast turning, but could snap you into near zero-G, so it was easy to get out of sync when doing snappy toggle turns, unload the lines, and twist up. Others had the same issue -- Saw an experienced jumper do something similar (without the spiral), and some multi-thousand jump Canadian jumper died from low line twists/spiral back in the early Sabre etc era too.

It was jump 187 for me, with the added complication of a large early 1990s video camera strapped to my shin with a wide angle lens looking up at the canopy for some maneuvering video.  Barely got any video in the end anyways, as the Sony's shake detection mechanism shut down the video tape transport about a second into my line twists.  

Another possibility is to do a tandem jump or two. That's a way to get used to going out the door and into freefall, with little anxiety about performance. As long as someone isn't flailing wildly, it'll be easy enough for the instructor to take care of stability and deploy the parachute. Get out, arch, learn to enjoy the experience.

Overcoming fear is a big part of the game when starting skydiving; all part of the challenge!

I'm no expert on the rules but:  A data card is not *required* to be with a reserve. People lose them, don't pass them on to a new owner of the reserve, etc.  A rigger might make a personal choice to not pack a reserve that has no known history, but that's not the norm. Under US & Canadian rules etc, the rigger inspects the reserve & decides whether it is airworthy. It would also be very rare for a reserve to have placard info worn away, like what one sometimes sees with older main canopies -- where the serial number is illegible. (That might indeed make a rigger make a personal decision not to pack such a reserve.)

Quote

All the points you mentioned are totally valid, but for me those are canopy exercises that are typically recommended to be done in hop and pops with clear airspace.

That is still a valid opinion.  I'm still in the old school where the point of skydiving is to have fun, while the new schoolers started not only clamping down on swooping (to avoid all the canopy collision carnage, plus occasional swoop landing carnage), but now are also clamping down on doing anything fun under canopy when up high...   

I thought or hoped that at least when higher up, people are a little more spread out, so one could have some fun under canopy, even if as people come together in the pattern or LZ, tighter rules need to apply.  I personally only have had the rule "don't do anything unpredictable under canopy" when at some multi-airplane formation event with everyone supposed to be on their best behaviour.

Anyway, this all does fit with the OP trying to find out what the rules and perceptions are at different DZs.

Quote

It develops 0 skills, it is an unsafe practice for the one doing it (can collide with other canopies that he/she didn't see) and for others (don't know where to go because the one spiralling is not flying predictably) and it gets boring rather quickly, so it is not even fun compared with other things you can do under canopy if you have the skills for it.

Seems a bit harsh. Spiralling is still fun. Spiralling can teach a lot. Doing spirals doesn't mean "simply hold one toggle full down for at least 3 full turns".  After all, every swoop starts with some sort of a spiral entry, like brakes & single riser, double risers, harness, etc. Plenty to practice there.  Swoop recoveries or emergency recoveries from dives also need a spiral entry. Practicing popped brake scenarios gives you spirals. Testing canopy stability using harness turns while brakes are set, that's another thing that can use spirals.  Catching up to another canopy to do proximity (or CRW) canopy work can involve spirals. And, heck, I've done crossbraced swoop canopy 2-stack CRW spirals. (Well, I did that way high up!)

Sure, mindless spirals aren't that much fun I guess once one is used to the canopy one is flying, and one is no longer just impressed by the speed of one's newer, smaller canopy. But there are plenty of things to practice that may involve steep diving turns of 180 degrees plus, or maybe 360 degrees, depending on one's personal definition of spiral or partial spirals.

16 hours ago, Deisel said:

Concur. A while back I proposed a junior/senior type of AFFI rating. Make the junior guy probationary for 10 or so jumps and limited to 2 instructor jumps with a senior I. Didn't get any traction though mostly I think because nobody was interested in the opinion of a new guy. Maybe now I can put together some concrete data that will either prove or disprove the validity of the proposal. 

Sounds a bit like the Canadian PFFI system. When you get a coach or instructional rating, it is in effect provisional, and there is set of requirements to be completed in the next year (extensions possible), with some extended supervision, to fully complete the rating.

E.g.,

Quote

 If successful, the candidate will receive a portfolio that to complete 25 PFFI jumps
(20 jumps in 2:1 and 5 jumps in 1:1) accompanied AT ALL TIMES by a certified PFF instructor
that will enable him to obtain the final certification of PFF instructor.

Edit: Not saying it has has to be exactly like that, but just throwing the concept out there.

I like to think DZ's do just fine in supervising their staff, making common sense decisions about supervision and easing into a job, including AFFI, but this does formalize some of that process.

From an old manual if you are still unsure.

Really, one can stuff the pilot chute in just about anywhere it fits on top of the bag. Mushroom it, or fold it neatly, whatever.  Just has to be clear (not jammed in between the bag and container when it is open), and the base has to be near the corner with the pud, so the pud can pull the pin without having to move the pilot chute (so it doesn't jam when the container is closed).    Something about not being pretty but it works. Not sure if it grandfathers you to pull at 2k.  :-)

I used to use a Racer with a pullout.

Yeah it is a little hard to piece together what was happening based on imperfect memories after what sounds like a crash landing.

A possible scenario:

Pilot chute in tow. (Rather than pilot chute around leg, which wouldn't have left you still falling stably while 'nothing happened' for some seconds.)  Cutaway & reserve procedures performed. Loss of pressure on main container allows main to come out of container as reserve deploys. Bad luck and bad timing results in a riser from the main tangling in the deploying reserve.

Probably nothing to do with tension knots.

Just an effectively fucked-up reserve because there's a main parachute somehow connected to it by a main riser caught up in it, pulling at it probably off center or maybe partially choking it off.

Leading to a high speed impact under a spiralling, perhaps partially inflated reserve. There are certainly some youtube videos out there of such scenarios.

Various related possibilities don't change the basic scenario, just how bad it might be: You might have been thrown into line twists under the reserve; the main could have been partially inflated, mostly streamered, or still caught up in its bag by its lines; the reserve canopy could be fully inflated or have part of it pulled together if the main riser wrapped itself around or through multiple lines or caught under rather than over the slider.

1 hour ago, kleggo said:

yeah i know, it's just SST, not Racer SST.

The actual ad states, "The SST's -- both the standard and the new Racer -- are delivered with ripcords and housings as standard equipment"

So there is an "SST Racer", the fancy new model, which I'm guessing just got called / renamed the "Racer" later on.  So in casual conversation one could indeed probably call the Racer version of the SST a "Racer SST". 

It isn't quite the same, but one could describe a Micron container as a Vector III Micron or one of them Micron Vector III's.