Divalent

"People judge themselves by their intentions, and others by their actions." So someone else broke themselves on a jump (or did something dangerous)? Clearly they were reckless. I break myself on a jump (or do something dangeroud)? Clearly wasn't what I intended to do; I was merely the victim of an unfortunate sequence of events.

Yeah, but so do you!

Like this (attached image)

By reputation, both are highly regarded, so I don't think you will find one considered significantly superior to the other, and it might make sense to chose the one that is closest to where you will be staying. (I've only jumped at z-hills when visiting down there, because it is close to where my relatives live). You might want to reveal when (and where!) you will be down there, just in case one of them is having a boogie or some other activity that would interfere with normal operations. It would also probably help if you would be more specific about your size and shape. I mean, you don't really care if a DZ has a wide variety of rig sizes. But you do care whether they have one that will fit *you*. (But don't expect perfect fits, even us averaged-sized students sometimes were in rigs that would have fit someone a few inches taller).

The complexity of an AAD seems to be mostly in the control electonics. I'd worry that a new player coming out of nowhere with a new AAD might not have the experience to insure reliability in that part of the system. If you think you have a better cutter design (cheaper, more reliable, etc), you might try seeing if a company that has experience with the control electronics side would be interested. For example, Argus: they went of of business mostly because their cutter suffered from enough catastrophic (or near catastrophic) failures that they lost the confidence of the container mfgs and the buying public. Their electronics were (IIRC) otherwise as reasonably good as the competition (more or less). Maybe a better cutter would induce them to reenter the market. They at least have an established name (albeit tarnished at bit, but I'd think more valuable than say, "df8m1" in the AAD marketplace), and had enough units in service for long enough time that there would be some confidence that their control electronics won't quickly reveal themselves to be problematic.

What does this mean, exactly? It seems to say that if the unit is not working, the risk will be lower *IF* you do the procedure, compared to if you don't do the procedure. Why is that? Does the procedure make the defective unit less likely to misfire (like, it helps it recover temporarily; kind of a "reboot")? Or do they mean it will be safer because you will now know the unit is no longer functional, and so you either won't jump, or you will turn it off before you jump?

Well, the DZ gets the slot and the gear rental $, and presumably there is some profit in those items. (and perhaps a cut of the gear store sales, when those students buy stuff, etc). Plus, if you don't train students, there eventually won't be any fun jumpers to fill the rest of the plane. (Jumpers who sometimes go on to become TIs and AFFIs, etc.) I've made more than 30 jumps for every AFF jump I did. I don't mean to begrudge a DZ from profiting on every aspect of their busines, but one could make a plausible argument that it still would be a net financial benefit to the DZ even if they merely covered their costs on an AFF jump (say, if things got really bad economically).

In college in 1974. A buddy did it the week before, and convinced me to try it (he never made another jump). I've always been sort of a thrill seeker, and utterly enjoyed it. (although I wasn't that good, lol!) Made 10 jumps in a static line training program (last 3 hop and pops), but my drive kinda of declined after my 10th jump, when I needed to use my reserve (due to really crappy main chute), and then later witnessing a fatality. Restarted 2 years ago (did a tandem the day before my AFF-1 course and jump, just to make sure I could keep my wits about me in free fall). Probably similar to dthames's situation, my one child was out of high school, so thought I could take a bit more risk at this stage of my life. I spent hours here and elsewhere studying up on modern gear and the causes of incidents, etc., and concluded the risk was something I was willing to accept (and manage to some extent: my goal is to try to be 10 times safer than the industry average.)

I'm trying to follow the discussion here, and am curious what you mean by "clear[ing] the tail".

Sound like two separate incidents on the same day (although first might be just a minor tree landing) http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/20632978/skydivers-injured-on-the-north-shore [made clicky]

Skyhooks are just like every other device added to a basic rig that is intended to reduce risk: their presence means there are additional failure modes that can cause harm that wouldn't have occurred in their absence. But skydiving technology is no different than any other area of technology. For example, there are unambiguous cases of air bags and seat belts in automobiles resulting in fatalities that would not have occurred had they not been present. The fact that such incidents have occurred (and will continue occur) is not the relevant consideration. Seat belt and airbags have saved far more lives than they have taken: the data is unequivocal. Their value is not diminished by noting some fatalities or injuries occurred because they were installed; one has to look at the data on both sides of the ledger. The relevant question here should be whether Skyhooks (or RSLs, or AAD, etc) result in a significant overall reduction in risk due to their presence/use, compared to their absence. While I don't know that this is the case with respect to the Skyhook, that is only because I (personally) have not seen the data comparing saves (and injury reductions) to those cases where the presence of a Skyhook was a factor in an injury or fatality. But ultimately, that is the analysis one must to do to determine whether a skyhook is truly a valuable safety device, as opposed to a device that just trades one risk for another equal risk.

But in your post above, you state "Also, make sure there is no less than TWO FEET of unstowed line above the risers." Since 2 feet = ~61 cm, (and 40 cm is absolutely less than 61 cm), I'm not seeing the agreement between the two of you. I'm interested in the topic, and appreciate everyone who is weighing in on it.

Once again reading the posts in the thread is alwys a good idea before posting.

I resized your photo for the convenience of other people

The information here is based on those incidents that were covered in the Incidents forum. I thought I'd summarized them a bit, to see if there are any evident trends. (List does not include military fatalities). 2012 US Sport Skydiving fatalities summary: 17 total skydiving fatalities (down from 24 in 2011) 3 were tandem fatalities (1 TI, 2 pax) Of the 14 non-tandem fatalities: 12 were of experienced jumpers; 1 student, 1 low timer 5 due to intentional high performance landing/low hook turn 5 were no or low cutaway 8 fatalities occurred after deployment of a good main canopy with no immediate problem 2 no pulls, both likely due to medical issues (and no AAD) Key to codes used below EJ = very Experienced Jumper (in terms of jump numbers) LT = Low Timer (< ~ 200 jumps) relatively inexperienced but not a student GC = Good main Canopy deployed (+ no complications shortly thereafter) HP = deliberate High Performance turn (i.e., not forced by conditions or inexperience) BW = Big Way 2012 US Skydiving fatalities list 1. Fatality - Z-Hills - January 1 2012 - low cutaway from spinning mal (EJ) 2. Perris Fatality 2-18-12 - Swoop crash (EJ) GC HP 3. Fatality - San Marcos, TX - 3 March 2012 - No pull, possible FF collision injury (EJ) 4. Fatality - Sebastian, FL - 30 March 2012 - Probable low hook turn (EJ) HP GC 5. Fatality - Lexington, TX 1 April 2012 - Student low cutaway, possible maneuver-induced main mal. GC 6. Tandem Fatality - Colorado - 1 April 2012 - 2 out downplane/entanglement?, no chop. (Pax died) 7. Lodi Fatality April 5, 2012 - Rode spinning main to ground. (medical?). (EJ) 8. Fatality - South Lake Tahoe, CA 5/22/12 - Water landing: drowned. High winds/bad spot (EJ) GC 9,10. Double Fatality-Tandem June 15, 2012 The Ranch, NY. Hard opening (EJ) 11. Fatality - Locust Grove, GA June 23, 2012 - swoop crash (EJ, but not current; not at a DZ) HP GP 12. Fatality - Skydive Happy Valley PA July 7, 2012 - spinning main mal, no cutaway. (LT) 13. Fatality - Bay Area Skydiving, CA 09/15/12 - swoop crash (EJ) GC HP 14. Fatality - Perris, CA - 23 Sept 2012 - Canopy collision shortly after opening, low cutaway: wingsuit BW (EJ) 15. Fatality - Skydive Carolina 28 Oct 12 - Swoop crash (EJ) GC HP 16. Fatality - Crosskeys NJ - 21 Nov 2012 - no pull, 62 yo medical issue (EJ) 17. Fatality - Sin City NV - 15 Dec 2012 - Prob canopy collapse - dust devil (EJ) GC I don't see anything sticking out as obviously unusual. 7 fewer deaths compared to 2011, but that year was up over the prior year (16 in 2010?). Fewer canopy collisions this year perhaps (so at least the swoopers were only taking themselves out).

Think of it as like a complete medical exam to potentially get lower priced medical or life insurance. Since it's optional, if you think you drive substantially safer than normal, consider going for it. (However, also make sure you don't drive many more miles than average: if you drive much safer than the average driver but rack up substantially more miles, you may not get the big discount you expect.)

Not sure I would do what their men do, however. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-BbpaNXbxg

I think there is an important distinction between someone who goes in without a main or reserve out (as appears to be the case here, and as was the case in the other notorious fatalities like it), and someone landing out under at least a partial that might be survivable. In the former case, unless they impact on the LZ, they likely will go unnoticed, but no accounting/check-in system is going to change the outcome. (At best, it will allow an early start to the search for the body.) Where it might be beneficial is in the latter case. But here, the fact that they are landing off is more likely be noticed by other jumpers and casual spectators on the ground, particularly if something seemed unusual (like a spinning mal, or a drifting canopy flight heading away from the DZ). Have there been enough such incidents in the past (i.e., landing injured away from the DZ, but no one noticed) to justify the cost of putting in a system (and the cost of false alarms)?

Okay, I'm not an instructor, and you really should consult with one. Having said that, here is a list of things that I felt were useful to know and/or do when I was a much fresher student. (and it's not intended to be authoritatively complete). Some of these are lessons I learned by doing something stupid, and realizing afterwards that I did something wrong. Up to now, you've had instructors looking out for you (protecting you, and protecting other jumpers from you). From a safety standpoint, there are a lot of things the instructors had responsibility for that are now your responsibility. Before doing solos (or immediately, if you are already doing solos but don't know this stuff): 1. know group exit order (and the theory behind it!) (if every other group told you what they were planning to do, you should be able to figure out the proper order, including your position in the list of groups) 2. know how to determine group exit-separation 3. discuss with an instructor what you should do if you find yourself in clouds at your planned opening altitude. 4. In consultation with your instructors, define decision altitudes for key situations (cutaway under a main mal, emergency exit altitude where you will go straight to your reserve, etc.) 5. Have checklists (initial gear checks, handle checks, etc) and *check points* (i.e., defined times you do your checks). Before each jump: 6. Have a free-fall plan to work on (exit type, skill worked on, opening altitude, etc) 7. Have a canopy plan to work on (e.g., flat turns, stalls, etc) 8. Determine what the winds are, and how they will affect your FF and your canopy flight 9. Determine what your landing pattern will be. 10. Calculate what the optimum spot should be. As you are loading and on the plane, coordinate with everyone else on the load: 11. Expected jump run direction. 12. LZ landing direction 13. Exit order (where should you be) 14. Exit separation As the plane climbs: 15. Note the altitude of cloud levels (base and top), particularly the lowest ones, so if you find yourself approaching them in free fall, you know what to expect. (see #3 above) 16. Don't fart. On Jump run: 17. note the direction of jump run (hopefully the same as was planned, but confirm) 18. Note the spot! After you exit 19. If you intend to track at all, look down and orient yourself perpendicular to the jump run direction before you do it. (Never track unless you know you aren't going up or down jump run)

Well, the student waved off and was going for his main before the reserve fired (and pitched a split second after), so I don't think we can call this an AAD save of the student. Hopefully he survived the two out (so it won't be an AAD fatality). 10 sec reserve ride for the coach/instructor (I'm assuming it was his reserve, but can't be sure).

I'm looking for a decent gear bag to hold my container and stuff. I ran across this for $99, and the size and style seem like it would be perfect. Volume wise it should hold my container and everything else with room to spare. No shoulder strap (that I can see from the photo or description), but it has wheels, and I assume the wheel/handle part means it has a ridged base (so it's not a floppy stash bag). Anyone have one of these that can give an opinion? How well does it work, and how well does it hold up to moderate abuse? Thanks http://www.militaryluggage.com/Coyote-Brown-Deployment-Container-Bag-p/9933coy.htm

Overloaded for the conditions. (All survived.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDu0jYiz-v8

just wondering.

Can anyone give me a scenario where how the pin is pulled would effect whether or not the pilot chute would pop out or not? I just can't imagine how this is relevant, but enough people seem to say (or accept) this, so I'd like to know how it is possible.

The attached image is from the first video you linked, during deployment of the reserve. I suspect he's glad he didn't have a side-mounted Contour with that one.