Divalent

In the recent USPA email update from last week, they urged us to contact our congress critters urging them to oppose the proposed $100 per flight user fee. I did. If you haven't emailed your representative and senators yet, I'd like to urge US skydivers to take a moment and consider what such a tax/user fee would mean to you if it is implemented. You might be surprised. If you jump from a turbine plane (piston planes are exempt), the $100 fee would apply to you. Yes, the DZO would be paying, but you can be quite sure that they will (unless they are really stupid) increase jump ticket prices to cover it. How much will depend on the plane they have, and what average load capacity it. For example: for an Otter that averages ~20 jumpers per flight, it works out to $5 per jumper. A caravan or PAC averaging 13: ~$7.50. (Clearly, the bigger and fuller the plane, the lower “per jumper” cost). So work it out for yourself: what's average load size at your DZ, divide into $100 to get the per jump cost, then multiply by your yearly jump numbers. What do you get? BTW, include work jumps in there: even though you don't pay it yourself, it does come from the pool of money that pays you, meaning not as much left over for you. For example, you jump at a Otter DZ and make 100 jumps a year? $500. Caravan DZ and 200 jumps a year? $1,500 a year. I suspect if this does pass, total jumps will go down a lot. Few jumpers jump without keeping an eye on the budget. For most I suspect that a 30% increase in jump ticket prices will result in a substantial decline in number of jumps made; maybe not completely offsetting it, but enough that with will be noticeable. So maybe it would be good for everyone to write their congress critters. Only takes a couple of minutes. The USPA email has links to a website that lets you easily find your senators and congress critter, and with a direct link to their contact page. So prepare a brief letter (the USPA email even has a link to a model letter you can cut and paste) and paste it in and hit "send".

My letter did not have the words "job" or "employment" in it. (I framed it as the perspective of a fun jumper.) But yes, the response was a "canned" one, and purportedly from the senator himself: signed by him and used personally referencing phrases like "I appreciate your thoughts on the economy ...". Regardless, it is pretty clear that he thinks people who contact him are stupid.

So I sent a letter ... about the proposed aviation fee to my 2 US senators and my congress critter, per USPA's request from a day ago. It was a slightly expanded version of the model letter USPA suggested. I only got one response so far. I heard back today from Saxby Chambliss. Here's how his response began: (I sent an email back in reply, but got an automated reply saying I had to use his website to contact him (as I did initially when sending my letter.) Asshole.) Doesn't make me hopeful that letter writing is worth the time.

Well, I guess my thinking is, what if you have a low cutaway and are accellerating, but on your back, so that "330" ft is really 480 ft. You can't find you reserve handle, and you reach 78mph at 470 ft (but AAD thinks it's "320 ft"). An AAD that fired then *might* save you, but one that shut off clearly can't.

At what velocity? Note: the # in the above table are in ft. "Lock" refers to the altitude you have to exceed in the plane before the unit will work as an AAD (so if you jump with any unit before the plane reached the "lock" altitude, it's not going to anything (might be better considered an "unlock" altitude)). "Bottom" is the altitude below which the unit will not fire regardless of conditions. (Presumes, I guess, that you are too low and too fast for any reserve activation to help you at that point). "Top" is the highest "altitude"** it will fire at if velocity conditions are met. So it will fire if the velocity condition is met between the top and the bottom. (assuming it was unlocked). Velocity thresholds: speed version velocity is >101 mph expert and tandem is >78 mph student is 45 mph above 655 ft, and then above 29 mph from 195-655. (stated another way: 45mph from 1085 to 655, and 29 mph from 655 down to 195) Anyone think the expert and tandem "bottoms" are a tad too high? [** of course, by "altitude" we all know it (and all other AADs) are really sensing barometric pressure, and body position can influence the actual altitude it will fire at.]

The first would be particularly likely if they were found entangled in the trees immediately above each jumper. The last scenario seems unlikely, because it would have to had to occur on two jumpers simultaneously; each wearing completely different styles of rigs. But in any event, I think the speculation has probably gone as far as it can (although I think it has been very useful and educational). Now we need facts. It sure would be useful to get a summary from someone who has seen the video and/or the AAD data. Anyone?

DB Cooper "skyjacking" was a government-orchestrated hoax designed to divert attention from it's conduct of the Vietnam war, and to besmirch the character of all skydivers in the eyes of the US public.

Ok, smarty pants, come up with a new and witty thread. ... Waiting Hey, you're PA'ing me! Moderator! Moderator! (Anyway, I suppose I'm a skydiver too, as I can't think of one either. But I could start a thread about DB Cooper. I think I'm like most people here that I'd really be interested in a discussion of information/clues about who that guy really was. )

... it's a saturday night and all you can think of doing is recyling an old topic. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=you%20know%20a%20skydiver&sb=score&mh=25 (only 10248 hits there) (my fav thread is the canadian one: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3024605) (this one ain't bad either: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=704840 as a sort of old joke thingie)

Why not just program in an "altitude correction" to raise the trigger point however much you like? Unlike the pre-2013 Cypres (at least those without the newer firmware), the Vigil will keep using it until you manually change it back. This way you can stay in "pro" mode and not risk a AAD fire due to radical canopy maneuvers.

I'm trying to envision what scenario you are worried about. I mean, if you have stowed your slider, then at one point you had a fully opened main above you, so even if things later go to shits, I'm thinking that at worse you will have a big draggy ball of crap above you yanking back at just about 1g. And once the risers detach, that means it will be your weight yanking on that velco. If you got a spinning canopy, g forces will be higher, and in the direction forcing a separation of your body from the canopy. I just don't see a small patch of velcro being much of a hinderance (even if aligned so that it need a shear force to separate it).

How about the Gregspo whining appology threads?

I'm not sure what your question is. But I will say this: her story is almost certainly untrue, and nothing you can observe about her will tip you off. (Good scammers are good at it because they are good at convincing you that what they say is true.)

Well the other consideration is that at some point, the unit has to conclude that the jump is over (and so now it starts looking to see if it's going on another jump). If they did that at 0 ft AGL, then a slight atmospheric pressure change between takeoff and landing might result in it not ever thinking it got back to the ground. If you are descending at 78 mph at 130 ft agl, a cypres fire is not going to save you. (But it might kill you if you were swooping.)

I strongly recommend you read the "DBCooper" thread in this sub-forum. It is just chock full of facts. (you're welcome!)

Um, aren't boobie pics suppose to go into the BillyVance thread? (congrats to the fish guy!)

I think there is a lot of stuff you can learn that won't get in the way of your instruction when it starts, and much of it on the internet. Learning about gear/equipment (terminology, names of parts and devices, how they work, etc), an overview of packing, types of malfunctions, basic airplane safety, key FAA regulations applicable to skydiving (cloud clearances, seatbelts, etc), and many of the BSR's in the SIM. In fact, start reading the SIM. (you can download a PDF version at the USPA website). Also, from the USPA web site, there is an "Online Ground School". http://skydiveschool.org/ I only briefly scanned it, but it seems like it covers things pretty well.

I've tried the "yank it off" method (>50 % of the time it breaks just above the knot after cinching that sucker much more tightly) and the "disintegrate/burn it off with a pull up cord" method (it sometimes is a bitch to thread a cord underneath it), and don't really like them. I have a swiss army knife with a small pointy ended set of scissors, and I carefully get one blade under the band and snip; usually it takes 3-5 snips, as I want to be sure I'm not snipping or otherwise damaging the cloth loop. And FWIW, I retrieve my knife from my gear bag when needed, and then immediately return it before continuing to pack. YMMV

How about a concise write up with all the relevant details? I'm not interested in watching a 12 minute docudrama just to determine if your accusations have any merit.

Wow! Haven't seen one of these threads in more than a week! (To the OP: if you learn to use the search function here, you will have stories galore.) [edited to add that I got sniped by the old geezers: by the time I came back here with my link to the same search, they both had already posted it ]

Responding to a couple of comments: Yes, he did jump sans helmet and goggles without incident in a 6 way from altitude. As mentioned above, the helmet landed right in the middle of the LZ, but was damaged beyond repair. Fortunately it was an Otter, so it didn't hit the tail (AFAIK; no one heard or felt anything). I wonder what it might have done had it been a plane with a lower tail (either from the force of impact, or if, say, a strap got hooked on something back there). My routine is to be strapped in from takeoff till the seat belt sign goes off, anytime I'm near an open door, and then finally once we get the two minute warning. Other than that, comfort determines whether it's on or not. (But if it is on my head, it is buckled. I jumped once with a tight-fitting unbuckled protec and spent the first 15 sec of the dive holding my helmet in place and buckling it in.)

Yes, he got it back! It landed smack dab in the middle of the LZ! (Great spot, eh?) (Of course, it was all busted up. )

http://youtu.be/e1YXV0Ve9Nc Did ya see it? (Yes, something unusual. Look again.] If you give up, check the comments.

Better would be to use the dropzone locator here to find a list of DZ's within some distance, then ask folks here for opinions and recommendations for training at each of those places. Someone completely unaware of the sport doesn't know the difference (good and bad) between a tandem mill (not good for students), vs a small cessna DZ and a turbine DZ (each of which will have their unique strengths and weaknesses). And manifest girl at the closest tandem mill ain't gonna spill the beans (instead, he'll be welcomed as a "student" and immediately strapped to the closest TI). just my two cents worth.

My trigger altitudes for different situations: In free fall (nothing out): 3500 - normal main deploy altitude 2500 - lowest planned main deployment altitude I'm okay with 1800 - straight to reserve (my main snivels a lot) Main mal (but something out): 1000 - above will chop; below just dump reserve Emergency plane exit: 1500 - main above, reserved below (assuming reasonably level flight) I have an RSL and a Cypres. And my main can sometimes snivel for 800 ft or more. All those have figured in my planning. Comments welcome. (FYI, here's a slow motion video of my main opening: slowed down by a factor of 10, so that 10 seconds of video = 1 sec of real time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtTbrdGW-dA )