chuckakers

Jack Pyland might know.

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Not exactly.

Back in the late 80s, when airplanes went to 'glass cockpits' (CRT displays for the instrument panel), they did a bunch of research on what format the gauges should be.

They found that analog (needle & dial) were read more quickly than digital. 
So they went with those.

More recent studies have shown that it's dependent on what you have used the most (what you 'grew up with'). It's not that the original studies were incorrect, just that the subjects who participated in them were more familiar with the analog and read them faster/better.

Many of the younger crowd grew up on digital displays and read those faster than analog. 

So it all depends on what you have the most experience with.

I've heard the "needle on the dial" argument for as long as there have been digital altimeters and it may be true with pilots for whatever reason.

When I ran a DZ in the late 90's I put my AFF students on digitals (the "digitude"  - the first and at the time only digital on the market) using the logic that the display read the same way we taught students to think - in 2 digits. 10.5 - 9.0 - 5.5 etc.

I'm sure there are opinions in both directions, but we found that our students liked the simplicity of a 2-digit, numeric display.

It also completely eliminated the "I couldn't read my altimeter" issue students sometimes had with analogs.

1 hour ago, The Hundredth Monkey said:

If the clouds are above opening height, what is the big deal?

So the USPA and the FAA need to come to terms with their egos and fear and start thinking rationally, if the rules are the same as they were a decade ago when I was there facepalming the hysteria over a couple of clouds on the horizon...
 

Not replying to the Monkey as much as posting for the benefit of those who are here to learn...

As I stated in a previous post, skydivers in clouds - whether in freefall or under canopy - can't see or avoid aircraft (or other jumpers for that matter). If the clouds are below the exit altitude but above the deployment altitude, jumpers are forced to freefall through them.

As for the assumption that any of this has to do with egos, no one needs to come to terms with anything. The FAA has rules in place for a reason. We follow them for a reason. Pretty simple concept.

It's usually a good idea to pick your battles wisely.

1 hour ago, The Hundredth Monkey said:

You mean, if there is a cloud on the horizon, feds can come and rough you up?

Vertical descents are by orders of magnitude more controllable than horizontal flight, but any power gained by feds, is never submitted.

If things were so easy, maybe you could have explained them...?

What ever happened to skydivers and this website?

you want to ensure one dude pulls his head in, or that a bunch of readers learn something?

I'm interested in why such obviously overzealous rules are not addressed, couldn't be too hard, maybe just an attitude adjustment?

 

Not completely sure what all that means, but I can say this. Skydiving in the U.S. operates under the FAA's "visual flight rules", also known as VFR. Under these rules, pilots are required to maintain clearance from clouds so they can see and avoid other aircraft. Much of the airspace in the U.S. is uncontrolled, meaning there is no air traffic control dictating aircraft movement. These areas require everyone to watch for and avoid everyone else on their own.

Put simply, skydivers can't freefall or descend with a parachute through or near clouds because we would be unable to see and avoid aircraft.

Specific clearance requirements are covered under Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) section 105.17.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-105/subpart-B/section-105.17

17 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

...not using a small mirror.

 

I've used the small stick-on mirror provided with the Viso altimeter for years and like it. I don't have to rely on any aircraft I'm in for a mirror and I don't have to bother anyone to check the indicator light.

As for checking my own gear - in this case camera gear - being a distraction, I disagree. I see it as being the same as checking my handles, harness connections, altimeter reading, etc.

If checking an indicator light is too much of a distraction for a jumper to stay safe they should leave the camera on the ground.

21 hours ago, GregAndrea said:

Chuck, I do apologize for the delay, I am located in Phoenix and I am currently working/jumping with one of the instructors at SDAZ.  Will probably be doing about 10-12 coach jumps as well as 10-15 min of tunnel time there.  After some discussion with my instructor, I am leaning more towards a Pilot or a Safire 3, but nothing has been ordered until I get more jumps.  Thank you for your input! 

Well played, brother. Thanks for the reply.

On 12/9/2022 at 1:54 PM, riggerrob said:

Yes, I put dozens perhaps hundreds of jumps on a Nova 150 (I weighed 190 pounds in street clothes) and never had any problems. It only got snarky when I pulled down a front riser. My only other complaint was that it opened harder than a Sabre 1 - 150.

Mine was stable in fronts, although the force to use them was excessive.

I always described the openings as "snivel, snivel, BANG!"

On 12/6/2022 at 12:36 PM, riggerrob said:

The only way that I can imagine "under-loading" a canopy to be dangerous is if you combine that "under-loaded canopy" with gusty winds with strong updrafts and even stronger down-drafts.

.... which makes us question why you were jumping in gusty winds???????????

When the air gets bumpy, POPS sit on the balcony and watch young pups get dragged through the cacti.

Hah!

Hah!

There is one case of a canopy that had a nasty disposition when not loaded on the heavy side for the performance of the day. The Nova.

I had a Nova 135. At 220 pounds in street clothes, it had two speeds - fast, and f*ckn fast. It was blamed for several low altitude, light loading canopy collapses and at least one death if memory serves.

When people called me out for jumping it, I would tell them that "I got a good one".

2 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Can you please elaborate on your claim of increased risk by “under loading a canopy?”

I would be interested in the details as well.

8 hours ago, skypilotA1 said:

To respond to sfzombie13, if you are that convinced a new rule is the proper thing to do, I suggest writing up your idea in the form of a motion, and ask your Regional Director to submit it to the Safety & Training Committee to vote on. Actions of a member usually get better results that comments on DZ.com. Most of the ideas for any change come from members.

I agree. Paul is spot on.

17 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Then what is the reason USPA refuses to implement a WL restriction for A, B & C License holders?

USPA has not "refused" to implement a wingloading restriction. Wording it that way suggests the organization should implement one but won't. That would be incorrect. Wingloading restrictions have been discussed on numerous occasions and the collective opinion is that there are simply too many variables to have a one-size-fits-all rule.

I am pretty well educated on performance canopy flight and can attest to this. There are jumpers who begin formal performance flight training early in their careers and others who have thousands of jumps before testing the CP waters. Some jumpers take to performance flight quite easily while others struggle with their progression. The list of variables goes on and on, and that's the point. What is safe for one jumper of a given license or jump numbers may not be safe for another.

Local leadership is in the best position to evaluate, educate, and enforce.

While we're at it, why do you not mention D license holders in your suggestion to make a restriction? I know some D folks that I would never want to see playing with higher wingloadings. License levels do not verify skills beyond those required to achieve the license.

4 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

...all one has to do to get a waiver is to demonstrate said skills in front of someone like they do for ratings now.

I don't know of any rating that can be obtained through a waiver by demonstrating skills. Please clarify for the sake of discussion.

16 minutes ago, D11281 said:

"Guidance only" may be the current position but I remember when BSR stood for Basic Safety RECOMMENDATIONS.

I don't have a very good memory, but I don't recall when the R in BSR ever stood for "recommendations".

Without respect to that, there are currently two distinct categories of "R's" in the SIM - recommendations and BSR's. The discipline-specific chapters outline recommendations. The BSR's - the "requirements" that are actionable when busted - are listed separately in section 2.

8 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

There is a huge difference between a hop-and-pop at 2,000 feet versus a terminal deployment at 2,000 feet. The terminal deployment requires far more altitude before you have a fully-inflated canopy overhead.

For a BASE analogy, consider the difference in deploying 3 seconds after leaving a low object versus deploying 30 seconds after leaving a high object. Which eats up more altitude.

Of course. No need for a BASE analogy. The concept you are referring to is equally relevant in both sports.

I mentioned demo jumps purely as an example.

6 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

if that is truly the case, and the reason the uspa isn't implementing wingloading recommendations is due to fear of being sued, then they very much need to stop pretending they care about safety. 

Choosing not to implement a wingloading BSR has nothing to do with a fear of being sued. Potential litigation has never even been part of the conversation concerning wingloadings.

10 hours ago, nwt said:

 

In the US it's popular to blame lawyers for just about anything and it may even be true much of the time, but even if what @riggerbob said is true, the above quote is plenty of a reason--it could easily be the difference between an unhappy @BMAC615 and the downfall of the organization. To so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that is getting to be absurd.

You quoted me, saying "In conversations I have personally had, almost no one was against raising deployment altitudes." and then replied with the above statement.

You may have misunderstood. When I said no one I spoke with was against raising the deployment altitude BSR, I meant jumpers, not USPA officials or anyone directly involved with such decisions.

 

On 9/23/2022 at 10:04 PM, BMAC615 said:

...what is the history and reasoning of raising minimum opening altitudes? I’ve been away for a while but thought it used to be 2k. Why is a waiver possible for C & D licenses?

The raising of the deployment altitude BSR took a while and was approached with much debate and consideration. Several factors contributed to the change:

Longer deployments have become the norm. The old altitude BSR's date back to the days of 7-cell F-111 canopies when 400 to 500 foot deployments were the norm and primarily only higher deploying students used AAD's. Many canopies today routinely take 900 to 1,000 feet to open and most experienced jumpers are AAD equipped. A simple math check shows that a 2,000 foot deployment on a canopy that takes 1,000 feet to open puts a jumper dangerously close to the AAD activation altitude, and puts the jumper AT the AAD activation altitude if anything delays the deployment (late p/c toss, burble hesitation, longer than normal opening, etc.)

Next, there has been an issue of long reserve deployments after AAD activations. The reason isn't completely clear - possibly p/c in the burble, long deployments after slow speed mal cutaways, p/c temporarily snagged on the jumper, etc. For this reason, some jumpers have adjusted their AAD's to fire higher than the factory setting. This in turn creates the above mentioned deployment altitude conflicts.

Less important but still part of the debate was exit altitude. On average, exit altitudes have gotten higher - much higher in many cases - over the years, and that has minimized - in the perception of many, anyway - the importance of humming it to minimums. I know a lot of skydivers and only know a few that routinely take it to the bottom unless they have to for traffic, big-way protocols, etc. In conversations I have personally had, almost no one was against raising deployment altitudes.

As for waivers, there are times when jumpers have to deploy lower than the BSR minimums. Demo's are an obvious example. There are many times when a cloud base is below minimums but still high enough to allow a safe jump by qualified jumpers, so a waiver makes sense.

There are probably nuances I have forgotten and anyone with a better memory than me are welcome to contribute.

Hope that answered your questions.

Ask Jesse.

https://www.skydivemag.com/new/jesse-pulls-off-a-barrel-roll/

54 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

1986

Earlier that summer, skydivers gathered at Pitt Meadows, near Vancouver, Canada to try and build a hundred-way. Their jumps were part of the festivities surrounding the EXPO 86 World's Fair. After building a series of 99-ways, they gave up.

A month-or-so later, most of them gathered at a Freak Brothers Convention to attempt more hundred-ways. After building a series of 99-ways, they adjourned to the USPA Nationals in Muskogee where they succeeded.

If memory serves, they decided to try an 8-way base in Muskogee over the previous attempts with 5-ways to speed things up.

3 hours ago, skyderrill66 said:

I disagree replace the ripcord and housing rsl and rsl guide rings then wash the container and it would make a great first rig for a new jumper.

Not a chance. The rig is 23 years old. The OP stated it was purchased at a storage unit auction, most likely meaning it has been exposed to extreme heat, humidity and all around nasty conditions. The main risers aren't even the right brand. It may not even be airworthy after all that is fixed..

Given the cost of the parts, materials, and labor to replace the housings, guide rings, risers, and who knows what else, it simply wouldn't be cost effective.

Good, airworthy containers can often be had for a few hundred bucks. Why would someone pay that much or more to get this relic up to speed - maybe?

11 hours ago, jakebaustin said:

heard about a few DZs that have closed sometime in the last year or so....skydive temple....

 

Skydive Temple did not close. They ceased operations in Salado and moved 30 minutes away to Harker Heights with plans to rebrand as Skydive Skylark. They are open and operating - confirmed minutes ago.

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

I apologize for making a point using humor and sarcasm that you found confusing to the point of needing to scold me without taking a big, deep breath and asking WTF? Truly if you'd have stopped at "I hope you are trolling for the sake of spirited conversation" you'd have learned quickly that you missed the joke. If ever again my sense of humor causes you angst please feel free to PM me for a complete explanation.

I didn't scold you. I disagreed with you. If you took it as a scolding that's on you, not me.

As I said before, my intent was and is to set the record straight for those who might take a veteran skydiver's words literally. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I avoided dz.com for a long time because of situations just like this. I guess I'll go back to the many skydiving Facebook groups where people actually try to be productive.

I'm out.

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, Chuck it was absolutely sarcasm. You clearly don’t know the first thing about me or how I operate. In fact, back before it was on USPA’s radar screen we separated Students from Tandems from up jumpers, giving each their own landing area, and created a dedicated HP landing area separated from the others by the runway.

We did it to increase safety. Not only are you in no position to lecture me but you were out of line.

I was not out of line and I was not/am not lecturing you.

There is a revolving door of newbies in skydiving, many of whom would take a post from a guy with 15,000 jumps and 45 years in the sport to heart. There was nothing in your post that would clue a newbie in on your sarcasm and yes, there are well-meaning people who routinely post their own version of best practices that are dangerous. Gowlerk was correct - someone could (and probably would) miss the sarcasm. My post was intended to set the record straight. Nothing more. Nothing less.

When someone posts blatantly incorrect information that could get someone killed I will point it out. That's not lecturing and not out of line. I hope you understand.

33 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

Third party observation...

I'm with gowlerk on this one.

 

 

Chuck, with every authoritative post you make, you are indeed claiming to be the 'guy in the right'. And, with your experience and position, you generally ARE the guy in the right. The points you are making here are correct and valid.

However, in both of Joe's statements, I believe he was using sarcasm in order to make his points. And I think those points are accurate as well.

You two don't really need to be arguing.

The problem with Joe's post is that the very people who need guidance - the young folks - often don't get the sarcasm. Hence I treat posts like his as serious and reply for the sake of clarity.

Given the insane amount of blatantly incorrect and potentially deadly information posted on this website, I prefer to set the record straight if a post even vaguely resembles something a newbie would take seriously.

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

There just does not seem to be a way to explain to USPA, in any way comprehensible that is, what a bad idea it is to even start with the idea that separating HP and normal canopy traffic by time. It's just a get out of jail free card for the stupid and irrational not a recommendation likely to be followed as intended. I do believe Chuck and I have sparred over this previously: he believes that descending quickly under his pocket rocket gets the job done in all ways. First he gets to be the responsible high man and then he gets to be the guy in the right. Perfect, I guess.

At least in the twilight of my, to date 34 years counting and not ending anytime soon, time as a USPA Group and Individual member, I had the pleasure of having the President of USPA publish online that my silly self and bad ideas are sufficient to recommend to all skydivers that my advice be ignored. 

Don't put words in my mouth.

I have never staked a claim to being "the guy in the right". Any statements I make are grounded in facts and historical examples. That's where best practices come from.

It isn't my opinion that yielding to the low jumper (aviator) is the best practice. It is the opinion of every aviation expert, the FAA, USPA, AOPA, and on and on. It's also the accepted practice for gliders, hang gliders, paragliders, etc., and for good reason.

I can cite dozens of cases of canopy collisions caused by a higher jumper failing to yield to a lower jumper - often during a performance turn that causes rapid altitude loss and a collision into a lower jumper flying a routine pattern or final approach. It's a scenario that has been repeated so many times that it should be obvious to anyone who studies our history.

I take no pleasure in recommending jumpers ignore someone's advice. My intention is always to educate jumpers - especially young, impressionable jumpers - to help them stay out of the incident reports.