Divalent

An interesting question that I'd like to hear the answer to, to help me understand what I should be looking for when i check my gear. It's hard to tell for sure, but the "smooth straight" portion does seem to have an ever so slight curvature to it (but not very much), but most of the "bentness" occurs at the point where this segment meets the thicker portion where it connects to the cable.

Totally 100% agree!. Except for "Raising Arizona", where I thought he was fantastic. (so, 99.9% agree.) But then, I think his character in that movie was totally suited to his real personality and acting persona.

That was very good.

Click on "Dropzone" in the blue menu bar near the top, recenter the crosshairs right over Orlando (zoom in the map) and then click search (or find, or whatever). Will give you those within (your choice) 50 miles up to 500 or so. (I found 10 within 100 miles). then go look at their reviews.

I think we are kind of on the same page. I don't fear having to take more than 25 jumps. And since you only need 5 target landings, you get plenty of opportunities after level 7 to meet it. Really, if you plan on a targeted landed for all 18 of your post-level-7 jumps, there are plenty of opportunities (13 of them!) you can pass on due to safety reasons and still meet the requirements. It seems (from my perspective as a student, and as a person who wants to be as reasonably safe as possible) that an approach and landing should first be safe, then be accurate. I don't know that actual reasons for the target accuracy requirement, but it seems to me that two purposes are 1) to prepare the student for the situation where they have to land off the DZ in a very tight spot, and 2) to give the student experience doing minor approach adjustments (flat turns, braked turns, flare turns) to get experience manuvering to adjust their flight path and to avoid obstacles close to their landing area. So my suggestion to put in some sort of separation requirement for all landings (or maybe 24 of 25, or 20 of 25 or something), and in particular to make it a absolute requirement to have it count as a "targeted landing" is just an attempt to add something that will keep us students mindful of a more important skill. (Again, the two recent student fatalities in Texas might not have occurred if just one of them was mindful of separation and acted accordingly.) That might work at some DZs (and if so, that seems equivalent to declaring a target before hand), but my DZ does not have a specific target. And the landing area is huge, about a 1/2 mile E-W (the main landing direction), so to be realistic and force me to set up my approach properly, I have to pick some spot before hand (and recently I've been mentally "foresting over" a lot of the excess area to try to simulate a tigher spot). Agree and Agree. And I think, for me, (I hope!), it's not an issue. But if you search the fatality database, student collisions near the ground where target fixation might have been a factor is common enough that this advice alone is unlikely to solve things. So one way to help might be to add an element to the requirement that forces the student to maintain proper separation. (and so if they find themselves too close at 300ft, they know they won't get their "target" item on this jump even if they land spot on, and so won't make the situation even worse trying to force their way in).

Reminder to self: always check the AAD prior to every jump. (I presume that had it not deployed during the main repack, a glance at the device during a routine prejump gear inspection up would have revealed that it was no longer armed.)

I'm a student in my solo phase, and in the process of accumulating "target landings", I'd like to offer my thoughts on this. I have been picking tragets before hand, although in one case I had to modify it on my downwind leg because 2 people had landed near it and I couldn't be sure they would be gone by the time I was on final. So I think any declared intent should requirement should have a safety exception. (Obviously there would be no way to communicate a change to an instructor at the last moment, but the current regs don't require announcing it in advance anyway). More importantly, IMO, is that in light of the possible contributing factor of target fixation in the recent dual student deaths in Texas, it seems to me that an additional requirement for a target landing is that the whole landing pattern be completed with some sort of minumum separation from other traffic. IOW, you don't get a "20M target landing" if you were dead on, but came within some distance (50M? I'll let the experts pick a safe distance) of other canopies anytime when in the landing pattern (1000ft and below). This additional requirement will force students to pay some attention to other traffic, and will preclude someone (knowingly or unknowingly) creating an unsafe situation in a desparate attempt to bag a proficiency card item. (And perhaps a target landing could be awarded if it exceeded the 20M distance due to presence of traffic. IOW, if safety requires a landing 30M left to avoid another jumper, give them the landing if they landed within 20M of a target that is 30M to the left of the original target.) Students tend to be more likely to create low level canopy collisions (outside of the swooping area), and other than general safety requirements, the A-license card doesn't have a specific item related to landing pattern separation. (Perhaps reword the 25 jump requirement to something like: "25 jumps maintaining a minumum 100M (50M?) separation from all other canopies from deployment to landing." So if you create (knowingly or unknowingly) a dangerous situation, that jump don't count.)

Yes, the irony is that, in this specific case, it looks like the failure of the device fortuitously prevented what should have been a sure 2-out situation.

Some local news coverage: http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=14275982

How about your "finance person"? You know, run the "insurance" angle on them: how useful are you if you have a broken foot? And why waste money on medical bills and medicines and stuff when you can waste it spend it on quality recreational activities? (And if they happen to be around, who knows? you might be able to squeeze another jump out of 'em.)

It's not normal. Not normal to be scared on the first few jumps? OK, Captain Fearless. Well, I never claimed to be normal. You must be right. I must not be normal either. (For me, being at the door was scary, but that progessive creep towards the door as the back gradually emptied was worse. It all changed by level 6; anticipation of fun grew and nervousness diminished. Now I'm like: "Hurry up back there! I wanna go!")

Hey! that's my Shtick! About ~5 of my AFF jumps. So I'd appreciated it if you can find another unique characteristic to mark your AFF days, thank you.

Thanks Ron and brettski74. I asked because Bill Booth's suggestion that the minumum deployment altitude be increased (which sparked this thread) seems to be motivated mostly by the desire to allow AADs to fire a bit higher, saving the small number how had bad outcomes when it fired too low, and to provide more time for a safer emergency landing even for those that fire and deploy as currently expected. The 500 ft increase he is suggesting seems fairly small relative to the wide range of minimum deployment altitudes that various jumpers are comfortable with (as the many posts above show). So (it seems to me) if the AAD could be easily set by the user to a different level (one they might be more comfortable with), the fact that some people use 700ft (or 820 in the Vigil?) and some might be using 1000 or 1200 wouldn't be a safety concern. IOW, I'm trying to figure out the logic of his recommendation, why is it necessary to have USPA recommend a higher level for all jumpers in order to allow AADs to fire higher? It sounds like it is not a simple straight forward thing to do. (But why not?)

Are AAD's user-configurable so that, for example, if you wanted your Cypres to fire at, say, 1000ft rather than 700ft, that it can easily be changed? (but that it otherwise behaves the same in terms of speed thresholds, etc).

Damn, I hope it don't take me 500+ jumps to get my first!

A noob here, but I did watch the video where Bill Booth explained why he was making that suggestion (so I'm just contributing what I think are facts): He was stating this change as a way to cut down on the number of incidents (not many but there are some) where an AAD fires, but the jumper still did not get a survivable canopy out in time. Either due to pilot chute hesitation or other very slow opening (and I suppose in some cases perhaps the AAD a bit off in its estimate of what the altitude actually was). So by backing up minimum deployment altitude 500 ft, the AAD can then be programed to fire at 1100 to 1200, giving an extra safety margin for those situations where the AAD comes into play. (And even if extra time was not needed to deploy, the other benefit would be more time for those under a AAD fired reserved to find a safer landing spot.) In that video, he also expressed his personal discomfort deploying as low as 3,000 ft, but it is clear that that is not the reason for his suggestion. Anyone is free to deploy higher as their comfort level permits. But he notes that the AAD firing level can only be changed safely if the minimum deployment level is increased, or else there would be a big increase in "2 out" incidents.

Thanks for the account, and glad you survived with no obvious major damage. (How's the tree? ) I do find it useful reading of other's experiences, as hopefully I can absorb the lesson without doing it myself. My boneheaded rookie mistake (one of them, that is) only led to me landing in a farmer's field (who doesn't like skydivers out there, and insisted that I owed him $50 for landing on his property!). Was at ~4000 feet right in my playground, but had to face into the wind just to hold my position (I think I was even drifing back a bit). Had this idea that I'd try to get down lower and out of this wind up at this level. So I yank a hard right to spiral down (like them swoopers!) and in one turn I am now on the other side of the DZ. OOO I think, I *REALLY* better get lower faster, and so I do it again! (the lesson: if you are barely holding your spot facing windward, you will run with the wind when you turn. DUh!) Now I'm well downwind of the DZ (over a forest), and as I suspected, the winds *were* lower at 3K, and I am creeping forward, but not enough to where I could be sure I could make it back. I gave myself to 2K to be sure, but at that level it was clear I wouldn't make it, so I turned and ran towards the many open fields to the north west (and had a nice landing, although it was tighter than the space at the DZ). Fortunately there are lots of out options where I jump, but even so, I shouldn't have had to use one on that jump. (And unlike your decision, I can't claim the defense that I was force to quickly decide in an unfamiliar situation: I did this when I had plenty of time to consider the consequences).

Yes, it's a free market and people have the right to vote with their wallets, but it's only fair and honorable if both parties have notice and an equal understanding of the conditions. IMO, having a sign with the blanket statement "no refunds under any conditions" is not sufficient notice for most first time tandem consumers that are naive about how the process works to realize that if they don't jump today, they will only get a raincheck (valid for them only) to jump in the future, even if they will never have an opportunity to revisit the DZ, and absolutely regardless of the reason why they didn't get to jump. The example of the TV posted above is one such situation where no one would think they wouldn't be entitled to get there money back if the store couldn't deliver the TV, regardless of a posted refund policy. Or if the plane caught fire on the ground and the DZO said "Dang, wish I had sent in my insurance premiums; looks like we are out of business for good!", no reasonable person would expect his next utterance to be "Sorry folks, the sign says no refunds. Here's raincheck as a momento of your visit". Same thing if the DZ just absolutely refused to take them up merely because the guy dated the DZO's sister, or massively overbooked and knew not everyone would get to jump that day. There has to be some exceptions where an honorable and fair business would issue a refund as a matter of course. And while there may be no law that prevents a DZ from having a rigid no-refund policy, by the same token that DZ has no right *not* to expect criticism of that policy where it clearly resulted in a customer getting screwed. There is a difference between what you are legally required to do, and “the right thing to do”. DZ aren’t like corner gas stations. Most people’s impressions of how they operate are based on a sample of one. Particularly in the minds of tandem customers that may only jump once or a few times in their lives, it is very likely the case that DZs have a shared reputation. How many tandem rides did this DZ lose because of the experience this visitor related to his friends that lived nearby. And would this person, and his/her friends, have been a bit more reluctant to visit their local DZ near their home for a jump, based on their experience at this one?

Yeah, a big prominent "no refunds" sign is fine when the buyer actually gets the product they order in the exact condition it was promised. In that case, both sides preformed their duties under the contract, so now a request for a refund would be equivalent to wanting to break the contract. It's another thing where they do what they are supposed to do (hand over the money) don't get anything for reasons that are mostly beyond their comprehension and completely beyond their control. I'd feel differently if the DZ explained to people that "winds right now have us grounded, but we expect it will clear, but if it doesn't, you only get a raincheck. Do you want to pay now?" (and not by a sign, but by a live person speaking directly to them.) (And a $50 "transfer fee" is bogus. What possibly burden on the DZ is created by another person using the raincheck that causes $50 worth of hassle on the part of the DZ?) I hope they rethink their policy. It's not good for the industry to have people who were incredibly excited about experiencing the sport come away with the feeling that they were robbed.

Ah, this one is way better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a35oXueasbE

Yay! So, no longer the DZ's "fly toy", eh? (I'm pretty sure you have to buy me beer now. Or something; I think.

I was hoping this weekend, but it doesn't look like the weather is going to cooperate. (I live ~90 min away, so hard to just swing by.) I did breakdown and get some green stuff (and some of my "usual"). I mean, if that's what they really like to drink, who am I to say they shouldn't enjoy it? (Plus, they fly the plane, pack the rig I use, and give me advice, so I suppose it's better if they are content.)

I didn't vote because I'm still a student and haven't really had a chance to considered the issue enough to make a rational decision about it. (So I don't do it, but only because I got more important things to work on.) However, in my explorations here about improving your chances of returning from a long spot, a couple of folks mention loosening your chest strap as one of several things that would help increase your foward speed. (I think the idea is that by widening your risers, it flattens the canopy somewhat). I may play with is in the near future to see if it makes a difference.

I believe this is what you were looking for: http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/Detailed/445.shtml

@Ozzy13: Could you comment on the how well you think the Skyhook functioned in this situation? When I compare the time to opening of your reserved in this video to those shown in the skyhook demo (link below), it seems slower, suggesting that it might not have worked, or might have not fully worked. (Was your reserve PC and bag still attached to your main?) Obviously, trying to time something by rapid stop action on Youtube is not ideal, so my impression may be incorrect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-WBBLAgE_s See the example of a skyhook deploy from a spinning canopy at about 4:30. Anyway, just seeking information. Thanks