Divalent

Wouldn't a better question be why didn't these two men save their own lives? No, that's a separate question. Many many skydivers want to the know the answer to the first question, and it makes no difference why, in this instance, the two ended up that low to begin with.

I understand. So what was that "simple" thing that apparently was the factor in this double incident? [Just say it. Lots of people want to know. If it's simple, then a one line post will probably satisfy everyone. What's the problem with doing that?]

will be interesting to see how this can be true... Exactly. If "all the gear worked exactly as it should", then: 1. the AADs activated at ~700 ft if in belly-to-earth orientation, or ~200+ ft higher if on back or head-down, and 2. Container opened within 3 sec or 300 ft, (as a TSO's container is supposed to do). So, if "all the gear worked exactly as it should" why did *both* individuals impact at a fatal speed in this case?

There are two general mysteries in this incident. The first is what caused them to not deploy at a normal safe altitude. I don't think we will learn any lesson we didn't already know when that cause is identified. (Likely it will be one or more of: be altitude aware, be healthy when you jump, avoid collisions in the air, fly stable, don't bump your head on the way out the door, don't chase a student below 2K, etc.) But a second issue is why both impacted at a fatal speed, despite both having AAD's that apparently did fire. A solo instance can easily be understood as due to some known weakness (container with unusually high reserve extraction forces, misprogramed AAD, poor gear maintanence, PC hesitation due to non-optimum body position, etc) But the two together suggests a common cause that may be unique to this incident.

The point of making organs only available to those that agreed to donate (or, if you want: give a huge priority to those that donate) is to give people an incentive to donate in advance, so that the supply of organs can increase to a level needed for demand. Right now people die because there is no organ available, and many people get less optimum tissue-matched transplants because of the poor supply. To me, it's a matter of fairness; kind of a social contract thing: no one knows if they will need a transplant, yet everyone would like to be able to get one if needed. If you are a donor, you are contributing to the common good, the pool of donated organs. If you are a non-donor, you are not. I have no problem with anyone deciding not to be a donor (for whatever reason). But I also have no problem saying that they should not have the right (or should have a much lower priority) to take from a limited pool that they weren't willing to contribute to. I don't say that a non-donor deserves to die, but I do say that someone who was willing to contribute to the pool of resources that saves people deserves to take some of those resources over someone who was not willing to contribute to that resource. [FYI, There are 16,000 people on the US liver transplant waiting list because there are not enough donated livers, and many many of them will die before they get to the top.]

I'm an organ donor and an Atheist. I acknowledge that there are people out there who are not organ donors because of religious beliefs. I would not begrudge such a person one of my organs. Nor would I, if my donated organ would otherwise go to waste. Unfortunately, it is the case that donor status has no impact right now on ones ability to get an organ, and yet people are dying waiting for an available organ. The "I refuse to donate mine; but I'll take yours if I need it" person might get the organ and live, which often means a "I'm willing to donate mine" person doesn't get it, and dies. If I had a choice, I'd prefer my liver went to someone who also had agreed to be a donor in advance, because in a different world it might have been me needing theirs. Vanishingly few people refuse to donate for bonafide religious reasons. Most people consciously refuse for fear they will be "terminated" to get their organs when there is still a chance of saving their life. Most others don't do it because they just don't what to consider the issue. Signing up as a donor when healthy vastly increases the chances that your organs will actaully be able to be used.

I donate blood all the time... Should it only go to other people who have previously given blood??? No way. Imagine the waste if it worked that way... If it got to the point where people who needed blood were dying because the supply was so tight (as *IS* the case for organ transplants) because so few people donated blood, then yes, I'd say they should do it for blood too. Thankfully, that is not the case. But that is the point of the requirement: more people would donate their organs (increasing the supply) if they knew that would be the only way to get an organ for themselves if they ever needed one.

I think it should be an option to either opt-in (you are a donor) or opt out, with the default being "no". But I also think that, should you ever need an organ, you don't get one unless you had *previously* opted in when you were healthy. Many people who need an organ don't get it because one is not available. It's only fair: if you don't want other to get your organs when you die, you have no right to get a scarce organ from someone else who did donate.

I psycho pack (for about 200 jumps so far), and roll the noses outward like you do, but I do this before I wrap the tail and flop on the floor. I then open things up and inspect, to make sure the front part the slider is visible (and to ensure lines remain separated) before completing the "triangulation" step. I am extremely careful to keep the slider against the stops before I start folding and rolling the canopy. I stop rolling about 5-6 inches short of the apex of the canopy, bag the roll, and then fold down and stuff that extra 6 inches into the gap in the roll. I'd say that my openings tend to be super soft (pilot 188; 1:1 wingloading) and quite snivelly. Since I've never had a problem, I can't say that anything I do is some sort of magical step. But since I don't have problems, I try to be very consistant in my technique. I like the technique and don't plan to go back BTW, you might want to consider getting a 6-8 inch bridle extention to connect your canopy to your Dbag; it will help minimize inadvertantly collapsing your PC.

IIRC, passenger weight limits are WAY WAY under what a harness is rated to hold. By, like, several multiples. The forces required to break a harness would kill you.

Heres a link to the DZ locator results for a search of DZs within 100 miles of your ZIP. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/dropzone/finder.cgi?lat=40.317231732315236&lng=-74.3939208984375&rad=100&Submit=Search&search=addr Of the two DZ's recommended above, Cross Keys (the "C" marker) looks to be about 40 miles closer than the Ranch (the "K" marker). But those distances are as the crow flies. Google maps says 66 miles (1 hr 18 min) to Cross Keys, and 113 miles (2 hr 8 min) to the Ranch. (FYI, your distance/time to Cross Keys is approximately what I travel to get to the The Farm, where I jump)

I would add that the general rule of thumb (dirty air beyond an obstruction a distance of 10 times the height of that obstruction) is just a loose rule of thumb but really is greatly dependent on wind velocity. The higher the wind velocity, the farther away dangerous turbulence will be encountered. With higher wind velocity, turbulence will be more severe (higher Reynolds number of the air flow). Further, turbulence dissipates with time, not distance, and severe turbulence needs more time to dissipate. And compounding that, because the ambient air mass is moving more rapidly, the longer dissipation time and the higher air-mass velocity means the zone of dirty air will extend a much greater distance beyond the obstruction. So an obstruction that rarely is a factor on a light to medium wind day (e.g., that house or that line of low trees across the street) can become a dangerous source of LZ turbulence on a high wind day.

A very interesting report. A few tidbits from their data: - Students: 6 times more likely to be injured on a jump than a licensed skydiver (major risk in first 2 jumps: 40% of student injuries here) - AFF training had ~1/2 the injury incident rate of static line training - Women nearly 2x more likely to be injured than men. - In general, DZs with greater number of jumps per year had a lower injury rate than smaller/less busy DZs. - Injury rate higher (~2x) during first month after reopening after winter shutdown. - Significantly higher risk of landing injury when landing under a reserve. (perhaps as much as 10x or more) - Significantly higher risk of injury when landing off the drop zone.

I've only been around for 2 years in the sport, but my recollection is that Argus is a tarnished brand only because of it's cutter reputation. If you were in fact taking the existing Argus control unit, and added a new cutter, I don't think there is any downside to keeping the Argus name. If the cutter can be easily exchanged with the older cutter on a unit that is still in service, it seems to me you would benefit from keeping that brand name. (And have decent market right out of the gate: right now many of the units are worthless, so folks would probably pay a premium to get a worthless item functional again.) And so you'd have immediate existing market presence, and there wouldn't be any awkward naming issues when refering to upgraded units (i.e., "I got an Argus control with the DF8M1 cutter"). (Designate a new model number, perhaps, to indicate the new cutter, which would apply to new units produced and upgraded existing units.) IOW, I think there is still good value to the Argus name, particularly if the new cutter can easily be swapped in for the old one. I don't have an Argus, but if they had a cutter like the Cypres (reliable, and single blade), I would not hesitate to consider it when next purchasing an AAD. I would probably go for a Cypres if the cost was the same, so you'd have to undercut Cypres to get my business (but off hand I can't say how much that would have to be). I suspect a lot of sports skydivers would view it the same. In any event, I'll note that Cypres's recent issue has given you a window of opportunity that didn't exist a month ago when you first floated this possibility. As for approval, it might make sense to call a couple of mfgs and outline what you are thinking of doing, as ask them exactly what they would require to get this new Argus cutter approved. Contact at least one that still approves use of the existing Argus, and one that has withdrawn approval (if there are any). It might be relatively simple ("just show us evidence that the cutter is unlikely to lock the container or misfire and partially cut the loop only to deploy at some later time") or it might be more complicated and time consuming. And I'd call SD AZ and speak with whoever decides their local rule, and similarly ask them what they would require to get their ban lifted. (It might be that you have to get all container mfgs who have banned the device to approve it with the new cutter.) Good luck!

I noticed that another poster reported the exact same behavior in the exact same thread: He could see the image when he previewed his message, but it failed to get into the message after he hit send. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4443766#4443766 So maybe something about that forum? Or that particular thread?

Watch the video (from 3 minute mark until he lands at about the 16 minute mark). It does sound unbelievable, but the video will convince you it actually happened. He is one lucky sob.

Once you've done that evaluation, continue to jump only on those kinds of loads. that way you're not relying on the AAD, but using it only as insurance. Engaging in riskier behavior because of the "insurance" is relying on it. Wendy P. I understand the point you are making (and it's useful to consider it that way), but I don't think the risk-reduction element of an AAD should be entirely ignored when deciding what types of jumps you might or might not make. After all, one could say the same about a reserve parachute. Not all types of jumps pose the same risk, and since both items reduce risk, their use or non-use might reasonably be a factor in a decision whether or not a particular type of jump is above or below one's risk threshold. Yeah, statistically a reserve alone is more likely to be needed than a reserve plus an AAD (so for most people, a reserve is a requirement to make any jump at all), but I see nothing wrong with someone deciding that, for example, a group jump that poses a higher risk of a mid-air collision is only worth the risk if they also have an AAD.

I'm wondering if you could explain why it doesn't seem to work for me in this post: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4442439#4442439 I did see the image "inline" in the preview screen, but not after it was actually posted. I will mention that I went back and edited the message a couple of times, having failed to do it correctly the first time (I didn't put the full image name in the inline code/tag, and when that didn't work, I came here, noticed the instructions about not having spaces in the name, deleted the original version of the image and uploaded a renamed one, and then (I think) properly formated the inline code.) So maybe it only works in a particular post if you get it right the first time?

Your path is very similar to mine: 10 jumps in 1974, then returned most exactly 2 years ago this month. I spent a huge amount of time learning about what the sport was all about in these modern times (barely recongizable) before deciding to start again. The gear is definitely more complex, but the good news is that PLF practice is now only a small part of your FJC. (Or maybe that's not a good thing, lol!) Where you located?

[inline helmeta.jpg]

Just from your description, I can't visusalize what you are refering to. From subsequent comments, it seems that it is not completely rare, so am very curious to know. Anyone have a photo or diagram of this "locked up" state? Or a detailed verbal description? Thx.

A review of her book "How to Choose a Husband ..." (from Slate, decidedly not positive): http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2013/02/suzanne_venker_s_how_to_choose_a_husband_reviewed.single.html [Interesting tidbit about her: she's Phyllis Schlafly’s niece, and author of a prior Fox New article about the "War on Men".]

Just a heads up that the Basejumper.com forum is broken. Since at least late thursday night. I can't post anything, and apparently no one else can either, since it's been dead since that time.

I thought so too. This weekend I looked at my own rig (a recently new Wings) and found that when measured in the instructions by Sunpath, they were the same length (about 5 inches). So I called my rigger over and asked her about it (mentioning this thread and issue) and she reached down and pulled another inch of cable out of my left side/RSL side. Only thing I can think of is that there is a lot of room for slack in the cable tube on the RSL/left side as it travels over up and over the top of my rig and than then down and back up to the cutaway point. So if you pull the handle, the right side (which is a short straight shot) will cutaway as soon as you've moved your handle 5 inches, but on the left side the first inch or so of pull only takes up the slack, and so a total of 6 inches of pull is needed to cut the left side away. If this is so, then the cutaway sequence will be right side before left. (Note that with Skyhooks the RSL is on the right side, so it gets the shorter straight-shot cable, so the cable length difference would be needed). Anyway, just some speculation based on my own rig.

Just my person opinion of what twitter could/should be used for, and what not to use it for: Don't use it for: - general advertising of basic information. I know where you are and your usual operation hours, so I don't need to be reminded/told that. And I already know how much fun it is, so no need to remind me of that. Use it for information that I would be highly likely to want to know, but probably won't unless you tweet me. Things like: - "although weather/winds might look iffy where you are, it's fine here and we are flying loads with no restrictions." - "weather/winds sucks out here (or plane has mechanical issues): we've shut down for the rest of the day (or need C license or above to jump)" - "we will be open and flying on [a specific weekday normally closed]." - Low cloud ceiling, but we are running hop-n-pop loads. It would be acceptable to send out a one time (or once a week at most) reminder of an up coming special event. (Canopy course, ratings course, boogie, informal competition, etc)