free flyers out first or last
Rob
I was talking to some people over the last couple of days and they seem to
think they should go out last having gone out last and caught the group up
in front of me on more than one occasions I'm not sure whether this is a
good idea
Is there a set procedure on whether they should get out first or last
rob
Jeff
Freeflyers got to the back of the bus!!
>"Rob" <alison...@btinternet.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:9bt2op$2dm$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
Andy
Rob <alison...@btinternet.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:9bt2op$2dm$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
Tom Olson
"Rob" <alison...@btinternet.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:9bt2op$2dm$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
Rob
and they seems to be a big difference on where dz put out free flyers having
gone out first and last in different places going out first seems to make
more sense
and I don't think I agree with the argument about free fall drift
so again where is the best place for free flyers to get out first or last
rob
"Andy" <ABoy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3ae22fca$0$42876$272e...@news.execpc.com...
Rob
but what has that got to do with this?? :o)
rob
"Tom Olson" <ol...@webtoaster.com> wrote in message
news:KoqE6.157646$wx.24...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Mary Jo Robinson
> I'm just after opinions on whether free flyers should go out first or last
> I was talking to some people over the last couple of days and they seem to
> think they should go out last having gone out last and caught the group up
> in front of me on more than one occasions I'm not sure whether this is a
> good idea
If this isn't a troll, thank you for sharing. A LOT of readers here need to
see this (as some think that this can't happen when you put freeflyers out
last).
> Is there a set procedure on whether they should get out first or last
Not really. Depends on various factors. Do a crosswind jumprun (in
substantial uppers) and it doesn't matter as much which goes out first or
last.
Fly free...
Paulie D-21740
gypcees
Into it, cross or down !!
They kinda matter in this area, but then again, how many people really see
what the uppers are doing anyway before they climb on that meat wagon ? !
Troy
Rob <alison...@btinternet.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:9bu8j6$d21$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
David B Brownell
Livendive
news:3AE33589...@ix.netcom.com...
> Rob wrote:
> > Is there a set procedure on whether they should get out first or last
>
> Not really. Depends on various factors. Do a crosswind jumprun (in
> substantial uppers) and it doesn't matter as much which goes out first or
> last.
Paul's taming down a bit. He's right, on a crosswind jumprun it doesn't
matter much. However *most* DZ's do their jumpruns into the wind, in which
case freeflyers should get out after bellyfliers. I don't care if
freeflyers on my load "believe" in freefall drift, the math is there. When
I bellyfly, I want out before the freeflyers. When I freefly, I want out
after the bellyfliers. (yes, some of us like both)When freeflying I flip on
my belly with plenty of altitude to a) slow down and b) decide if I need to
open a little high to get back. If you jump at a normal dz that does upwind
jumpruns, you might want to consider doing the same.
Blues,
Dave
Skratch Garrison
Rob wrote:
> why is this a troll I've never seen this question come up before?
People think it's a troll because the question of exit separation
came up here about 10 years ago and over the years has accumulated
more posts than even the Cypres threads.
http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/ has several articles including
some from Bryan Burke who spent several years managing Eloy.
> and I don't think I agree with the argument about free fall drift
> so again where is the best place for free flyers to get out first or last
If you assume that the plane is flying into the uppers and people
are falling straight down into the relative wind then
http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/sg_skr_coach_weekend.html
has a write up the current viewpoint.
If people aren't falling straight down into the relative wind,
then I don't believe you can solve this question with any kind
of mechanical algorithm like this.
Skratch
gypcees
Just think how freaked out people will be when I get pro grips on my next
free fly suit !
They already get pissed when I tell them I'm doing 1/2 & 1/2 !
Troy
Livendive <live...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9c012m$b74g3$1...@ID-75676.news.dfncis.de...
D16842
>People think it's a troll because the question of exit separation
>came up here about 10 years ago and over the years has accumulated
>more posts than even the Cypres threads.
>
Well, we can't have that, now can we...
I jump a CYPRES because of the "Small Sky" concern:
It is a small sky. Snuffy, Jimbo, Tandemterry, Espen, MOM, Ty, Kallend, Bruce,
Anne, RIPOLAC, Rita, CRWMike, Jan Meyer, and lots of others are all out there
to get me. Any of them are clearly capable of hitting me, rendering me
incapable of pulling my own handles, no matter where they are currently
jumping.
:-)
Tom B
TY
D16842 wrote:
Awwww man!! Who told him????????? ;o)
Jerry K.
are doing aloft, how much DELAY there is between groups, and whether
the freeflyers are truly head/feet down or in more of a very steep
track.
In answer to your question, in most cases I think the freeflyers
should get out after the belly-flyers but understand that I've seen
the head-downers going screaming past the belly-flyers when they got
out afterwards and opening directly under the belly-flyers (with
reasonably safe vertical seperation) when they've gotten out before.
Seperation between groups is key and never be shy to tell the pilot to
go around if the spot is gone.
...bsrp
...jlk
Special ALF 9
>Scratch wrote:
>I jump a CYPRES because of the "Small Sky" concern:
>It is a small sky. Snuffy, Jimbo, Tandemterry, Espen, MOM, Ty, Kallend,
>Bruce,
>Anne, RIPOLAC, Rita, CRWMike, Jan Meyer, and lots of others are all out there
>to get me. Any of them are clearly capable of hitting me, rendering me
>incapable of pulling my own handles
--------------->Snuffy......not unless its with a
shotgun frum the ground, why are ewe going that low anyway crybaby? & we always
put the fastest fall rate out first which happened to be the sitflyers, they
had a faster rate of fall & were more likely to be all over the sky. The RW
people are going to have to git past that "IF I SPOT, I GO FIRST!"
attitude----its deadly and skygoddy :)P
Snuffy Smith (_?_)
Brillant moine Asthetic
la philosophie du skydiving
ohm ohm :>
Jerry K.
>--------------->Snuffy......not unless its with a
>shotgun frum the ground, why are ewe going that low anyway crybaby?
Understand that it's only *one* possible scenario but it is entirely
possible to be rendered unable to get a canopy out at or above a good
altitude to open and to plummet through and below that altitude.
That's where the little robot comes in and get's something out for
you.
...bsrp
...jlk
kallend
I agree - but there is a solution. Paulie should post instructions on
how to construct a skyball, and everyone should jump with one to give a
reference to "straight down into the relative wind".
Special ALF 9
Jerry K.
wear seat-belts and helmets on takeoff or keep their heads on a swivel
under canopy or practice their procedures on every jump or check their
handles once they're under canopy indicates negative thinking..
Survival is key. The great desire to do it again...and again...
To suggest that if a person decides they want an AAD because of the
*possibility* that there *might* come a time when they *might not* be
able to get something out over their heads so that they *might* be
able to survive and that such a decision is due to negative thinking
is...actually correct. It's as much negative as positive. Negative
in that the belief exists that a robot *might* be needed to get
something out for you. Positive in that the *hope* exists that the
robot will work.
...bsrp
...jlk
Roy A. Urick
straightforward and clear that freaks should go out last... (based on upwind
jump run)
Since there's no sign of him, I'll do the honors...
http://www.iit.edu/~kallend/skydive.html
"Rob" <alison...@btinternet.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:9bt2op$2dm$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
kallend
8^)
Ann T. Poblenz
Do a search and it will clogg up your computer!!
Enjoy!
- - - NunAnn
Rob wrote:
> why is this a troll I've never seen this question come up before?
> and they seems to be a big difference on where dz put out free flyers having
> gone out first and last in different places going out first seems to make
> more sense...
snipped for brevity
Mary Jo Robinson
> > > Is there a set procedure on whether they should get out first or last
> >
> > Not really. Depends on various factors. Do a crosswind jumprun (in
> > substantial uppers) and it doesn't matter as much which goes out first or
> > last.
>
> Paul's taming down a bit.
Not at all.
> However *most* DZ's do their jumpruns into the wind, in which
> case freeflyers should get out after bellyfliers. I don't care if
> freeflyers on my load "believe" in freefall drift, the math is there.
Fuzzy math I guess cause i keep talking to more and more freeflyers and
witnessing more and more close calls with freeflyers out last (buzzing RW
groups).
> When
> I bellyfly, I want out before the freeflyers. When I freefly, I want out
> after the bellyfliers. (yes, some of us like both)
and put themselves at risk of either getting run over at break off or diving
head first through someones back at breakoff...
> When freeflying I flip on
> my belly with plenty of altitude to a) slow down and b) decide if I need to
> open a little high to get back. If you jump at a normal dz that does upwind
> jumpruns, you might want to consider doing the same.
But Dave, you want maximum horizontal separation. Getting on your belly early
keeps you in freefall just a little bit longer than otherwise, therefore
increasing your drift and decreasing separation. Now that doesn't sound very
safe to me... ;^)
Fly free...
Paulie D-21740
Mary Jo Robinson
> You guys are doing such a good job I didn't see the need to interfere
> 8^)
...and we are freefalling robots. Just to clarify John's computer model.
Fly free...
Paulie D-21740
Mary Jo Robinson
Skratch Garrison wrote:
> http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/ has several articles including
> some from Bryan Burke who spent several years managing Eloy.
Very good material.
> If you assume that the plane is flying into the uppers and people
> are falling straight down into the relative wind then
>
> http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/sg_skr_coach_weekend.html
>
> has a write up the current viewpoint.
Right on, agreed (talking about separation only, [not canopy separation at
landing], and only IF people ARE falling straight down).
> If people aren't falling straight down into the relative wind,
> then I don't believe you can solve this question with any kind
> of mechanical algorithm like this.
...and.... RIGHT ON!! YES!!! Skratch hits the nail on the head.
Fly free...
Paulie D-21740
Mary Jo Robinson
kallend wrote:
> I agree - but there is a solution. Paulie should post instructions on
> how to construct a skyball, and everyone should jump with one to give a
> reference to "straight down into the relative wind".
Excellent. :^) ...oh, and enjoy jumping, as we now know it, while you still can.
Fly free...
Paulie D-21740
Mary Jo Robinson
> In my experience it varies (as it does dz to dz) with what the winds
> are doing aloft, how much DELAY there is between groups, and whether
> the freeflyers are truly head/feet down or in more of a very steep
> track.
>
> In answer to your question, in most cases I think the freeflyers
> should get out after the belly-flyers but understand that I've seen
> the head-downers going screaming past the belly-flyers when they got
> out afterwards and opening directly under the belly-flyers (with
> reasonably safe vertical seperation) when they've gotten out before.
...and another one comes out of the closet... I had a feeling they were out
there.
> Seperation between groups is key and never be shy to tell the pilot to
> go around if the spot is gone.
Worth a second reading, the above sentence.
Fly free...
Paulie D-21740
Livendive
> Livendive wrote:
>
> > > > Is there a set procedure on whether they should get out first or
last
> > >
> > > Not really. Depends on various factors. Do a crosswind jumprun (in
> > > substantial uppers) and it doesn't matter as much which goes out first
or
> > > last.
> >
> > Paul's taming down a bit.
>
> Not at all.
Damn
>
> > However *most* DZ's do their jumpruns into the wind, in which
> > case freeflyers should get out after bellyfliers. I don't care if
> > freeflyers on my load "believe" in freefall drift, the math is there.
>
> Fuzzy math I guess cause i keep talking to more and more freeflyers and
> witnessing more and more close calls with freeflyers out last (buzzing RW
> groups).
The more you jump and the more jumpers you talk to, and the more people
there are freeflying, the more you'll hear about incidents like this. It's
kind of like the more you hang around skydiving, the more reserve rides
you'll hear about. That doesn't mean mains are opening less reliably, just
that your exposure to the phenomena is increasing.
>
> > When
> > I bellyfly, I want out before the freeflyers. When I freefly, I want
out
> > after the bellyfliers. (yes, some of us like both)
>
> and put themselves at risk of either getting run over at break off or
diving
> head first through someones back at breakoff...
Verses the risk that I'll have a cutaway after an 8-way and fall into some
freeflyers canopy who opened directly below me, or have to take it into the
basement freeflying cuz that 4 way is still turning points at 3 grand right
above me. Or have one of those bellyfliers come through my canopy when I
have an inadvertent deployment while freeflying through 5 grand, or have to
dodge canopies during a bellyfly breakoff cuz those freeflyers didn't fall
quite as fast as they were supposed to and then opened at 3 grand. Vertical
separation is insufficiently safe. You need horizontal. On upwind jumprun,
freeflyers after bellyflyers increases horizontal separation. I understand
that you disagree. That's fine, but if we're ever somewhere that follows
your lack of logic, you'll probably find me doing tracking dives, CRW, or
drinking beer.
Blues,
Dave
John Mason
discussing wind drift based on the amount of time one spends as a recipient
of wind force. In fact their are a number of posts, articles, etc.
discussing this using various analogies, examples, etc. At this point, I
don't think anyone (well, that's just way too broad of a statement to make,
scratch that, I don't think I) will argue with these findings. However, let
me allow me to express "my opinions, observations, etc."
First off, drift, who drifts the most, etc. is not the only thing to
consider. What happens after freefall? With you? With the group in front
of you? With the group in back of you?
So let's look at what happens with "freeflyers out last":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
RW groups out first. Assuming adequate time between groups, we get decent
horizontal separation between RW groups. Freefly groups follow. Again
assuming adequate time, again we get good horizontal separation between the
last RW group and the first freefly group. So far so good.
However, let's consider a few more items. Let us consider a very windy day,
relatively speeking. You know, the kind where the object is that the first
group out end up us exactly above the main landing area in the dz, due to
the fact that because of the winds there is little to no penetration into
the winds.
Now, if RW is out first, and since RW groups drift more, this pushes the
jump run deeper then a less windy day. RW groups out, 1st RW opens right
above the main landing area. Cool. Freefly groups out after RW. Here
things change. Yes, we do get more separation because of the drift. BUT,
since the freefly groups experience less drift, and since the spot was
deeper due to more drift experienced by the RW groups, the freefly groups
are now further out (deeper in the spot) then a less windy day. Luckily the
upper winds will carry them back. Most of the time. However, the first
freefly group has to fly in a "holding pattern" perpendicular to jump run.
Why? Because they most likely opened before the last RW group. Not because
"freeflyers pull higher", but because of the amount of time spent in
freefall/freefall speed and so on. So, the freefly groups now are not only
further out then normal but are now "waiting" for the last RW group to open
before they can fly back to the landing area (that is downwind).
Now personally, I'm really ok with this (I'm sure you've guessed by now that
I do more freeflying than rw.) And I am ok with landing out on occasion.
But I will say this, if the wind conditions, etc. do not change, and I land
out once, you better believe that given the same spot for exit, I will call
for a second pass. Any DZOs out there listening? Unfortunately my
experience with some DZOs are such that, well, let's just say that "go
arounds" are severly frowned upon.
Also, we need to educate all parties involved, to understand not to just
"fly back to the dz". I have seen my share of people who were freeflying,
start heading back, only to fly under the last rw group. I personally have
landed off a number of times because I coulde not start flying back to the
dz until the rw group in front of me opened.
So, let's revisit "freeflyers out first":
-----------------------------------------------
Again, a very windy day, with target of opening for first group being
directly above the main landing area. Ok. Freeflyers out first. Yep,
guess what. RW group ends up above the freefly group (or "stacked up" in so
many of the examples that I've read). So, what went wrong? Not enough time
between groups to leave adequate horizontal separation. Is it possible to
spread out the groups evenly (i.e. safely)? Of course - just give the
"appropriately adequate" time between groups, that time being sufficiently
longer between the last freefly group and the first RW group.
Also realize that since the last freefly group has mostly likely opened a
good 20 seconds before the first rw group (10 seconds less freefall time +
10 seconds (min.) between groups = 20 seconds). Now, that last freefly
group is already heading back towards the main landing area (downwind of
their openings). Anyone care to do the math of the distance covered by the
group under canopy in high winds vs. the drift of the rw group? So, given
sufficient time between the groups, as well as considering the opening
locations and canopy flight paths after opening, it is possible to be safe
with freeflyers out first.
A benefit to putting the freeflyers out on a high wind day is that the
freefly groups do travel less from drift, and the spot can actually be
shallower than normal, or at least shallower than putting rw out first. And
given proper time between groups, less chance of needing a second pass.
Conclusions:
-----------------
First off, let me say this. I recognize the fact the everyone wants to get
out first (safety issues aside). I do. I mean, hey, clean airspace below
right? But much of the arguments I've seen thus far tend to be more
discipline oriented than safety and efficiency oriented. We need to stop
the bickering, etc. Please.
Secondly, I have experienced both situations. I spent a year and a half at
a dropzone where freeflyers went last. And I witnessed, first hand, people
landing off, people flying their canopies away (parallel) from flight line,
underneath the group that went out before them. And on good days I
witnessed very smooth, safe operations.
Now, at the dropzone that I currently jump at, we have put freeflyers out
first. I have seen some close calls. Yesterday for instance. And I have
seen smooth operations. Yes, truly, I have. For 3 years.
So, safety-wise, both situations can and do work, and both situations can
and do fail. Both situations can have fatal effects. No doubt in my mind.
Both scenarios can work safely and efficiently, but only if we are educated
on the policies of the dz, and what we need to do to be safe under those
policies.
So, if I may be so bold, perhaps we can look beyond our own personal ajendas
that are truly trivial to the higher issue of safety, and consider more
factors in the equation: time between groups, what happens after opening,
exit location of first, middle and last groups, etc.
I do have a preference. Let me out first. But my selfishness aside, let's
consider all factors, and whichever method we choose, let's recognize
benefits and pitfalls of each. I will gladly go out last, as long as I can
call a second pass when I feel it's necessary for my and others safety,
without feeling as though I'm going to get heat from DZOs, other jumpers,
etc.
Safety first.
- John Mason
Special ALF 9
>wear seat-belts and helmets on takeoff or keep their heads on a swivel
thats not negative its smart skydiving
we were discussing yer negative issue's, that will eventually be yer demise
(within the decade! :) cuz it blinds yer sheep butt not heds up skydiving :-*
Jerry K.
>
>thats not negative its smart skydiving
Just as accepting the possibility of not being able to get a parachute
out on your own due to a variety of circumstances *and preparing for
it*, that is also smart skydiving. Some people like hook-knives, too.
No AAD ever cut someone out of a wrap. just as no hook-knife ever got
a reserve out for someone uanable to do so on their own.
>we were discussing yer negative issue's,
No, we were discussing why you think AAD's only are for crybabies.
>that will eventually be yer demise
>(within the decade! :)
So, it's no longer suicide is it? Now, it's "Negative Issues" that
will take me out in under ten? "Negative Issues" -Now, you're just
sounding like you're from California...possibily Marin County but more
likely the Valley. Duuuuuuuude-Chilllllllllllll....Duuuuuuuuude!
>cuz it blinds yer sheep butt not heds up skydiving :-*
>
Hard to be heads up when, for whatever reason (the possibilities are
numerous), you are no loner conscious.
...bsrp
...jlk
Special ALF 9
then the anal kid drifts off the topic <snip>
>we were discussing yer negative issue's,
>
>No, we were discussing why you think AAD's only are for crybabies
Gee last I heard from my rigger
I own a cypress, but then again I went thru the golow stage before ewe ever
started skydiving kid heh heh.
My belief on the subject has always been,
if ewe want one buy one....if ewe require sumone else to have one, BUY THEM
ONE! that usually puts the cypress natzi's in their foxholes cuz they just want
to act like they care...not work to improve progressive training & thinking or
even subsidize cypress cost for sheep.
Let them put their money where their mouth is :-P
Jerry K.
>>to...@aol.com (Special ALF 9) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>thats not negative its smart skydiving
>
>then the anal kid drifts off the topic <snip>
>>we were discussing yer negative issue's,
No, that was you drifting off topic. No worries.
>>
>>No, we were discussing why you think AAD's only are for crybabies
>
> Gee last I heard from my rigger
>I own a cypress, but then again I went thru the golow stage before ewe ever
>started skydiving kid heh heh.
You have a rigger?
>
>My belief on the subject has always been,
>if ewe want one buy one....if ewe require sumone else to have one, BUY THEM
>ONE! that usually puts the cypress natzi's in their foxholes cuz they just want
>to act like they care...not work to improve progressive training & thinking or
>even subsidize cypress cost for sheep.
>Let them put their money where their mouth is :-P
No argument there-seems reasonable to me. My point is people who feel
they need one are not crybabies-they are simply just people who want
one.
...bsrp
...jlk
Mary Jo Robinson
> > Fuzzy math I guess cause i keep talking to more and more freeflyers and
> > witnessing more and more close calls with freeflyers out last (buzzing RW
> > groups).
>
> The more you jump and the more jumpers you talk to, and the more people
> there are freeflying, the more you'll hear about incidents like this. It's
> kind of like the more you hang around skydiving, the more reserve rides
> you'll hear about. That doesn't mean mains are opening less reliably, just
> that your exposure to the phenomena is increasing.
Well, it sure throws out the validity of the "we will be safe with RW out first,
and that is that" attitude. It takes more than just sticking RW out first.
People have to think and when people have to think, you can take advantage of
the freeflyers out first option (however that doesn't work in all situations I
will add).
> > > When
> > > I bellyfly, I want out before the freeflyers. When I freefly, I want
> out
> > > after the bellyfliers. (yes, some of us like both)
> >
> > and put themselves at risk of either getting run over at break off or
> diving
> > head first through someones back at breakoff...
>
> Verses the risk that I'll have a cutaway after an 8-way and fall into some
> freeflyers canopy who opened directly below me, or have to take it into the
> basement freeflying cuz that 4 way is still turning points at 3 grand right
> above me. Or have one of those bellyfliers come through my canopy when I
> have an inadvertent deployment while freeflying through 5 grand, or have to
> dodge canopies during a bellyfly breakoff cuz those freeflyers didn't fall
> quite as fast as they were supposed to and then opened at 3 grand. Vertical
> separation is insufficiently safe. You need horizontal.
duh. Why not both instead of just horizontal (if at all).
> On upwind jumprun,
> freeflyers after bellyflyers increases horizontal separation.
Not substantially and not enough to cover a f*** up on a freeflyers part by
leaving too soon after RW and not enough that it can't be closed even with what
some might consider "too much" delay between last RW and first freefly group.
> I understand
> that you disagree. That's fine, but if we're ever somewhere that follows
> your lack of logic, you'll probably find me doing tracking dives, CRW, or
> drinking beer.
Sorry, it works better sometimes (and the majority of times that I have seen).
And if you call doing something that works better illogical, then I am guilty.
Fly free...
Paulie D-21740
Mary Jo Robinson
John Mason wrote:
<BIG snip- blah blah>
> Safety first.
Exactly my point all along.
Fly free...
Paulie D-21740
Special ALF 9
one way to settle it is freeflyer only loads
but if the GPS broke........who wud spot?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
DAYUM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
THEM................THEM :-*
freeflyer
>
> People have to think and when people have to think, you can take advantage of
> the freeflyers out first option
Why would I want to take advantage of something that's an inferior
system? <g>
> (however that doesn't work in all situations I
> will add).
It _only_ works when the people in the switch-group know what they're
doing imo.
> Vertical
> > separation is insufficiently safe. You need horizontal.
>
> duh. Why not both instead of just horizontal (if at all).
Because vertical isn't worth shit, so you don't need it. If you get a
lot of horizontal separation with FF out first, and we can for the sake
of argument agree that we don't care about vertical separation then what
advantage does FF out first have again? There's only stuff under canopy
left and that's one of the easy things to work around imo. Flying
objects hurling at you is a bit harder to work around.
> > On upwind jumprun,
> > freeflyers after bellyflyers increases horizontal separation.
>
> Not substantially...
As opposed to "decrease". I prefer the increase, thank you very much.
> and not enough to cover a f*** up on a freeflyers part by
> leaving too soon after RW and not enough that it can't be closed even with what
> some might consider "too much" delay between last RW and first freefly group.
Sure, that goes for both. With FF out first and groups that drift
towards each other you are more likely to have two or three groups to
worry about, not just one, right?
> Sorry, it works better sometimes (and the majority of times that I have seen).
It can work _just_as_well_, isn't that what you mean?
> And if you call doing something that works better illogical, then I am guilty.
Talk to the people at Eloy, the worlds biggest dz (I don't care what
Perris Valley says!), and ask them why they don't do "something that
works better".
--
Espen
ALF#1
Mary Jo Robinson
Special ALF 9 wrote:
> one way to settle it is freeflyer only loads
> but if the GPS broke........who wud spot?
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> DAYUM
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> THEM................THEM :-*
Cause you are a freeflyer means you can't spot? Some weird logic if you
ask me. You okay Snuffy?
Fly free...
Paulie D-21740
Mary Jo Robinson
> > People have to think and when people have to think, you can take advantage of
> > the freeflyers out first option
>
> Why would I want to take advantage of something that's an inferior
> system? <g>
....like RW out first? I don't know, why would you? :^P
> > (however that doesn't work in all situations I
> > will add).
>
> It _only_ works when the people in the switch-group know what they're
> doing imo.
Well, it has worked when they didn't, but that could be chance.
> > duh. Why not both instead of just horizontal (if at all).
>
> Because vertical isn't worth shit, so you don't need it.
You should never *need* it, but your statement is pure BS. Why don't you ask around
and see how many people there are that were thankful they were able to spot
parachutes 3000 or even 2000 feet in advance, below them instead of blowin through a
12way RW at breakoff (kinda the extreme but not hard to accomplish). Ask yourself
Espen, which would you rather have of the previous choices? If you believe adding
vertical sep ain't worth shit, then you need to re-examine what we are after here.
> If you get a
> lot of horizontal separation with FF out first, and we can for the sake
> of argument agree that we don't care about vertical separation then what
> advantage does FF out first have again? There's only stuff under canopy
> left and that's one of the easy things to work around imo. Flying
> objects hurling at you is a bit harder to work around.
One: you can start jumprun sooner (FF gets less drift, then can climbout sooner).
Two: typically, the first RW group out is a 4way or some larger group that has a
substantial climbout (if not, should be no problem but just saying..). Now
generally, this really works nicely with a big FF group exiting before a big RW group
(and ideally, only one big FF group climbing out even sooner to set up their exit.)
which also is nice cause it means less potential groups on the plane... Also, since
you MUST be heads up to know when to exit whether it is RW out first or FF out first,
with FF out first, you not only get the horizontal sep. that you can get with RW out
first, but now you get an *extra* (note: never primary) vertical gap. And lastly,
two canopy landing groups who are usually coming from opposite sides of the landing
area and who are now not converging on each other (face it, most people don't know
how to fly a landing pattern and the rest are stuck to deal with it... never a good
situation and not the best solution, but it does work)
> > > On upwind jumprun,
> > > freeflyers after bellyflyers increases horizontal separation.
> >
> > Not substantially...
>
> As opposed to "decrease". I prefer the increase, thank you very much.
Let me ask you, two feet extra makes you feel safer? Or even 50 feet or even 1,000
feet.... given that you are not exiting at 4,000 feet but rather 12,500, or 14,000 or
higher not uncommonly. What the number you feel safe with?
> > Sorry, it works better sometimes (and the majority of times that I have seen).
>
> It can work _just_as_well_, isn't that what you mean?
No, better sometimes. Just as well also and worse, but better *sometimes* (being
conservative, as in my observation, it has been most times).
> > And if you call doing something that works better illogical, then I am guilty.
>
> Talk to the people at Eloy, the worlds biggest dz (I don't care what
> Perris Valley says!), and ask them why they don't do "something that
> works better".
Eloy does RW out first and it works fine from what I hear. Great. I don't deny
that. Not every dz is Eloy Espen, despite what you think. Maybe there are a bunch
of Eloys in Norway, but not here dude. 300 plus US dzs last time I checked and only
a handful might be considered similiar to Eloy. You should be careful about how you
are making your decisions here.
Fly free...
Paulie D-21740
freeflyer
>
> > Why would I want to take advantage of something that's an inferior
> > system? <g>
>
> ....like RW out first? I don't know, why would you? :^P
Tell me why it's inferior again from a safety standpoint.
> > It _only_ works when the people in the switch-group know what they're
> > doing imo.
>
> Well, it has worked when they didn't, but that could be chance.
How about this then; if the switch group doesn't know what they're doing
then FF out first does not work as well as FF out last.
> > Because vertical isn't worth shit, so you don't need it.
>
> You should never *need* it, but your statement is pure BS.
I meant I don't need to consider it when talking about separation.
> Why don't you ask around
> and see how many people there are that were thankful they were able to spot
> parachutes 3000 or even 2000 feet in advance, below them instead of blowin through a
> 12way RW at breakoff (kinda the extreme but not hard to accomplish). Ask yourself
> Espen, which would you rather have of the previous choices? If you believe adding
> vertical sep ain't worth shit, then you need to re-examine what we are after here.
LOL! How about let's concentrate on getting the maximum horizontal
seperation instead so we won't have to be so diligent about searching
for canopies right below us. Not saying it won't ever happen, but if you
concentrate on always using horizontal separation, then vertical
separation will be obsolete. KISS Paulie, KISS.
> One: you can start jumprun sooner (FF gets less drift, then can climbout sooner).
Agreed, that's a plus. But, due to the nature of the group after, won't
the SPOT be just as long? If you want the horizontal separation to be
the same in both cases, then it doesn't matter except that you have more
time between the switch-groups. Right?
> Two: typically, the first RW group out is a 4way or some larger group that has a
> substantial climbout (if not, should be no problem but just saying..). Now
> generally, this really works nicely with a big FF group exiting before a big RW group
> (and ideally, only one big FF group climbing out even sooner to set up their exit.)
> which also is nice cause it means less potential groups on the plane...
LOL! You're basing your argument on "the fewer the groups the better".
How many places do you know of that consistently have "few" groups in
the plane if it's a turbine (excluding Byron, as they seem to be an
anomaly). With a dz that has a small Cessna the discussion is silly
anyhow, because you only have 4-6 people to care about. So, I'm
presuming we're talking about larger planes here.
> Also, since
> you MUST be heads up to know when to exit whether it is RW out first or FF out first,
But for one of them you need to be _more_ heads up. KISS.
> with FF out first, you not only get the horizontal sep. that you can get with RW out
> first, but now you get an *extra* (note: never primary) vertical gap.
But I don't want that vertical gap. I want the best horizontal I can
get, without consideration of vertical.
> And lastly,
> two canopy landing groups who are usually coming from opposite sides of the landing
> area and who are now not converging on each other
You must spot differently than we do, or maybe be used to calm winds at
Byron. Where I jump everyone except for the first group should fly
downwind to the landing area, while the first group should be right on
top of it, or a little bit on the upwind side. Do you consistently drop
people downwind of the landing area?
> > > > On upwind jumprun,
> > > > freeflyers after bellyflyers increases horizontal separation.
> > >
> > > Not substantially...
> >
> > As opposed to "decrease". I prefer the increase, thank you very much.
>
> Let me ask you, two feet extra makes you feel safer? Or even 50 feet or even 1,000
> feet.... given that you are not exiting at 4,000 feet but rather 12,500, or 14,000 or
> higher not uncommonly. What the number you feel safe with?
I would consider _any_ increase to be to my benefit. _Any_ decrease is
not. It is for you as you like to use the vertical separation as a
cushion though. I hope your cushion doesn't deflate.
> > It can work _just_as_well_, isn't that what you mean?
>
> No, better sometimes. Just as well also and worse, but better *sometimes* (being
> conservative, as in my observation, it has been most times).
When everything's equal, how can it work better? Please give me a
scenario. And we're still in the context of avoiding freefall
collisions, right?
> Eloy does RW out first and it works fine from what I hear. Great. I don't deny
> that. Not every dz is Eloy Espen, despite what you think. Maybe there are a bunch
> of Eloys in Norway, but not here dude. 300 plus US dzs last time I checked and only
> a handful might be considered similiar to Eloy. You should be careful about how you
> are making your decisions here.
Why? I am using the dz that has the _most_experience_ with dropping
skydivers in the _whole_world_, as an example. They do it more than
anyone else out there. Now, how come I can't look at them and use them
as an example? They fly the same planes as everyone else (Otters,
Skyvan, Porter, KingAir, etc), they just have a hell of a lot more
experience with it. So, what's different with Eloy? Is there something
in the air in the desert that makes the exit order different from
elsewhere in the world?
Chris
"Rob" <alison...@btinternet.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:9bt2op$2dm$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> I'm just after opinions on whether free flyers should go out first or last
> I was talking to some people over the last couple of days and they seem to
> think they should go out last having gone out last and caught the group up
> in front of me on more than one occasions I'm not sure whether this is a
> good idea
> Is there a set procedure on whether they should get out first or last
>
> rob
>
>
>
>
>
Chris
"Rob" <alison...@btinternet.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:9bu8uu$7m2$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> egg definitely
> but what has that got to do with this?? :o)
> rob
>
>
> "Tom Olson" <ol...@webtoaster.com> wrote in message
> news:KoqE6.157646$wx.24...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> > Chicken or the Egg.....
zepp...@iastate.edu
>
<snip>
> However, let's consider a few more items. Let us consider a very windy day,
> relatively speeking. You know, the kind where the object is that the first
> group out end up us exactly above the main landing area in the dz, due to
> the fact that because of the winds there is little to no penetration into
> the winds.
>
> Now, if RW is out first, and since RW groups drift more, this pushes the
> jump run deeper then a less windy day. RW groups out, 1st RW opens right
> above the main landing area. Cool. Freefly groups out after RW. Here
> things change. Yes, we do get more separation because of the drift. BUT,
> since the freefly groups experience less drift, and since the spot was
> deeper due to more drift experienced by the RW groups, the freefly groups
> are now further out (deeper in the spot) then a less windy day.
Why? Exit separation _should_ change with changing winds. On days with
higher winds the exit separation will be longer, but that is only
because the plane travels a shorter ground distance. So, if the plane
travels the same distance on the ground, why don't the jumpers? (There
is a _slight_ difference right at exit, but I don't believe it's very
big compared with no-wind days)
> Luckily the
> upper winds will carry them back. Most of the time. However, the first
> freefly group has to fly in a "holding pattern" perpendicular to jump run.
> Why? Because they most likely opened before the last RW group. Not because
> "freeflyers pull higher", but because of the amount of time spent in
> freefall/freefall speed and so on. So, the freefly groups now are not only
> further out then normal but are now "waiting" for the last RW group to open
> before they can fly back to the landing area (that is downwind).
On windy days they have to wait _less_ for the bellyflyers to pull as
they _should_have_ waited longer in the plane after the FS group left.
So, they have to wait less time and may be a _little_ further out than
usual. Doesn't sound like a bad scenario at all to me.
> Now personally, I'm really ok with this (I'm sure you've guessed by now that
> I do more freeflying than rw.) And I am ok with landing out on occasion.
> But I will say this, if the wind conditions, etc. do not change, and I land
> out once, you better believe that given the same spot for exit, I will call
> for a second pass.
Imo, the chances of you landing out are greater on no-wind days if the
first group spots to make them pull right over the landing area. Some
manage to adjust for the lack of wind (ie. know they can fly upwind
after they pull and the faster ground speed of the plane), but in my
experience they rarely do. The biggest problems we (ie. freeflyers last
out) had at Eloy was when the uppers were calm. The first group always
took it a bit too far and the snowball effect made us end up even
farther out.
> Also, we need to educate all parties involved, to understand not to just
> "fly back to the dz". I have seen my share of people who were freeflying,
> start heading back, only to fly under the last rw group. I personally have
> landed off a number of times because I coulde not start flying back to the
> dz until the rw group in front of me opened.
Good point.
> So, let's revisit "freeflyers out first":
> -----------------------------------------------
> Again, a very windy day, with target of opening for first group being
> directly above the main landing area. Ok. Freeflyers out first. Yep,
> guess what. RW group ends up above the freefly group (or "stacked up" in so
> many of the examples that I've read). So, what went wrong? Not enough time
> between groups to leave adequate horizontal separation. Is it possible to
> spread out the groups evenly (i.e. safely)? Of course - just give the
> "appropriately adequate" time between groups, that time being sufficiently
> longer between the last freefly group and the first RW group.
Now, if you give the "appropriate" or "adequate" time between groups
they should end up with the same horizontal distance between them as if
they had gone the other way. I don't understand how this distance can be
_allowed_ to change just because you're changing the exit order. I want
the _same_ horizontal separation, as I don't trust vertical separation.
> Also realize that since the last freefly group has mostly likely opened a
> good 20 seconds before the first rw group (10 seconds less freefall time +
> 10 seconds (min.) between groups = 20 seconds). Now, that last freefly
> group is already heading back towards the main landing area (downwind of
> their openings). Anyone care to do the math of the distance covered by the
> group under canopy in high winds vs. the drift of the rw group? So, given
> sufficient time between the groups, as well as considering the opening
> locations and canopy flight paths after opening, it is possible to be safe
> with freeflyers out first.
You said the magic word, "possible". If the FS people get out too soon
however, the scenario changes drastically and I don't want to be on the
recieving end of it. That's the problem with FF out first, it all
depends on whether the FS group know what the hell they're doing. From
my experience from a couple of boogies, that isn't always the case. Most
people ask for a certain amount of seconds to wait and follow that
blindly. You can not do that with FF out first imo.
> A benefit to putting the freeflyers out on a high wind day is that the
> freefly groups do travel less from drift, and the spot can actually be
> shallower than normal, or at least shallower than putting rw out first. And
> given proper time between groups, less chance of needing a second pass.
Again, why? If the horizontal separation between the groups at pull time
are the same and the first group always pulls right above the landign
area, how can the spot be shorter? The first group can get out earlier,
but the first FS group have to wait quite some time, making the spot
just as long as with FS out first. I see one benefit to this method and
that is that FS groups have more time in the door, which lessens the
chance of them hosing the people in the back of the plane. This is the
most likely reason for the last people out being hosed, not whether FS
or FF went out first imo.
> Conclusions:
> -----------------
> First off, let me say this. I recognize the fact the everyone wants to get
> out first (safety issues aside).
Not so. I want to get out last. I have no reason to sit by the door. I
know some people care, but I don't. Put me way the hell back there for
all I care, as long as I get to jump.
> I do. I mean, hey, clean airspace below right?
If was freeflying and went out first I would be worried about the space
above me. After I left the plane I lost all control over what happens
behind me and with a group that is drifting towards me I would be hard
pressed to trust them. Maybe I'm paranoid, but from what I've seen at
boogies, this seems like a warranted fear to me.
> But much of the arguments I've seen thus far tend to be more
> discipline oriented than safety and efficiency oriented. We need to stop
> the bickering, etc. Please.
It's a good discussion imo. It resurfaces ever so often here, with the
same players on each side, but it's an important one. I would like to
see DZOs with a lot of experience with both chime in though, but they
are few and far between on this dz.
> So, safety-wise, both situations can and do work, and both situations can
> and do fail. Both situations can have fatal effects. No doubt in my mind.
> Both scenarios can work safely and efficiently, but only if we are educated
> on the policies of the dz, and what we need to do to be safe under those
> policies.
How many people do you know of that actually know all this at boogies?
The usual questions are "What's the landing pattern?" (if that), and
"How many seconds do I wait between groups?"
If every dz did the same thing this would be a non-issue, unfortunately
they don't.
> So, if I may be so bold, perhaps we can look beyond our own personal ajendas
> that are truly trivial to the higher issue of safety, and consider more
> factors in the equation: time between groups, what happens after opening,
> exit location of first, middle and last groups, etc.
I think a lot of us do. Maybe you only read the "bad" posts? :o)
> I do have a preference. Let me out first. But my selfishness aside, let's
> consider all factors, and whichever method we choose, let's recognize
> benefits and pitfalls of each. I will gladly go out last, as long as I can
> call a second pass when I feel it's necessary for my and others safety,
> without feeling as though I'm going to get heat from DZOs, other jumpers,
> etc.
Call for a second pass if you want, but don't blame it on "FF out last".
Blame it on the people who hosed you, ie. the first groups who took
forever to get in the door.
> Safety first.
Very true!
--
Espen
ALF#1
Ann T. Poblenz
Epsom wrote a bunch o stuff:
seems like I dont have to start my own show after all.. I just monitor yours...
but I am working on beeing annoying....per your request
this is a meaningless start...
hand me a beer
- - - NunAnn
freeflyer
>
> Epsom wrote a bunch o stuff:
He would never do that. Is he new here too btw?
> seems like I dont have to start my own show after all.. I just monitor yours...
> but I am working on beeing annoying....per your request
> this is a meaningless start...
You're off to a good start. Keep 'em coming.
> hand me a beer
Sorry, no can do. Meet me in Z-hills and I'll help you out :o)
--
Espen
ALF#1
Ann T. Poblenz
> "Ann T. Poblenz" wrote:
> >
> > Epsom wrote a bunch o stuff:
>
> He would never do that. Is he new here too btw?
>
ahhhh.. a Loki complex...me still thinks Alan wins.. he have more voices than you!!
> > seems like I dont have to start my own show after all.. I just monitor yours...
> > but I am working on beeing annoying....per your request
> > this is a meaningless start...
>
> You're off to a good start. Keep 'em coming.
>
well, I lost my touch after that hiatus.. I will work my way up..
>
> > hand me a beer
>
> Sorry, no can do. Meet me in Z-hills and I'll help you out :o)
>
You are so helpful!!
> --
> Espen
> ALF#1
freeflyer
>
> > > Epsom wrote a bunch o stuff:
> >
> > He would never do that. Is he new here too btw?
> >
>
> ahhhh.. a Loki complex...me still thinks Alan wins.. he have more voices than you!!
No he doesn't.
No he doesn't.
No he doesn't.
No he doesn't.
:o)
> > You're off to a good start. Keep 'em coming.
> >
>
> well, I lost my touch after that hiatus.. I will work my way up..
I'm pretty sure you'll catch right up.
> > > hand me a beer
> >
> > Sorry, no can do. Meet me in Z-hills and I'll help you out :o)
>
> You are so helpful!!
I know. Weird, ain't it?
Mary Jo Robinson
> > ....like RW out first? I don't know, why would you? :^P
>
> Tell me why it's inferior again from a safety standpoint.
There are only so many 'agains' before it really isn't worth it anymore.
> How about this then; if the switch group doesn't know what they're doing
> then FF out first does not work as well as FF out last.
As well?? That is assuming you will be fine just by putting FF out last which is
completely untrue. Don't be delusioned.
> > Why don't you ask around
> > and see how many people there are that were thankful they were able to spot
> > parachutes 3000 or even 2000 feet in advance, below them instead of blowin through a
> > 12way RW at breakoff (kinda the extreme but not hard to accomplish). Ask yourself
> > Espen, which would you rather have of the previous choices? If you believe adding
> > vertical sep ain't worth shit, then you need to re-examine what we are after here.
>
> LOL! How about let's concentrate on getting the maximum horizontal
> seperation instead so we won't have to be so diligent about searching
> for canopies right below us. Not saying it won't ever happen, but if you
> concentrate on always using horizontal separation, then vertical
> separation will be obsolete. KISS Paulie, KISS.
Maximum horizontal sep isn't going to happen with someone who isn't leaving the right delay
between groups and that can happen with FF out last. If there were some safety zone, a
certain gap that guaranteed safety from collision just by putting FF out last, then I might
hear your arguements, but there just isn't. You need a brain to make it work either way.
That is primary, if you don't have that it really doesn't matter what you do. Big sky
theory in those cases...
> > One: you can start jumprun sooner (FF gets less drift, then can climbout sooner).
>
> Agreed, that's a plus. But, due to the nature of the group after, won't
> the SPOT be just as long?
No, because they will drift more.
> If you want the horizontal separation to be
> the same in both cases, then it doesn't matter except that you have more
> time between the switch-groups. Right?
Right. More time to spot (if really needed), check for other A/C (always needed at some
dzs, and not done nearly enough by many jumpers) and to set up your exit.
> > Two: typically, the first RW group out is a 4way or some larger group that has a
> > substantial climbout (if not, should be no problem but just saying..). Now
> > generally, this really works nicely with a big FF group exiting before a big RW group
> > (and ideally, only one big FF group climbing out even sooner to set up their exit.)
> > which also is nice cause it means less potential groups on the plane...
>
> LOL! You're basing your argument on "the fewer the groups the better".
> How many places do you know of that consistently have "few" groups in
> the plane if it's a turbine (excluding Byron, as they seem to be an
> anomaly). With a dz that has a small Cessna the discussion is silly
> anyhow, because you only have 4-6 people to care about. So, I'm
> presuming we're talking about larger planes here.
I am basing my arguement of when and why freefly out first can be (or is) better. I didn't
say all the time everywhere. Sounds like you might have ADD.
> > Also, since
> > you MUST be heads up to know when to exit whether it is RW out first or FF out first,
>
> But for one of them you need to be _more_ heads up. KISS.
Now you are just being an ALF. And what a dumb statement... sorry, it just is. You make
it work or you don't, there is no 'more' heads up or less. I have decided, I dont' care
what exit order, if we are on the same plane on a high upper wind day, I am getting out
after you or riding the plane down thanks. You obviously have trouble with long delays
between groups.
> > with FF out first, you not only get the horizontal sep. that you can get with RW out
> > first, but now you get an *extra* (note: never primary) vertical gap.
>
> But I don't want that vertical gap. I want the best horizontal I can
> get, without consideration of vertical.
Duh, best horizontal is key. Maybe you are missing something here (or just trolling as I
am being lead more and more to believe).
> > And lastly,
> > two canopy landing groups who are usually coming from opposite sides of the landing
> > area and who are now not converging on each other
>
> You must spot differently than we do, or maybe be used to calm winds at
> Byron. Where I jump everyone except for the first group should fly
> downwind to the landing area, while the first group should be right on
> top of it, or a little bit on the upwind side. Do you consistently drop
> people downwind of the landing area?
No. Sometimes the spot is past 'the top' but people drift downwind. The lower winds
(3,000 and down...) don't always match the uppers (sounds like they frequently do at your
dz). You can have a 30 knot upper wind (14,000) and very little at 2,000 so someone
getting out right over the landing area, will drift downwind and then fly back under
canopy.
> > Let me ask you, two feet extra makes you feel safer? Or even 50 feet or even 1,000
> > feet.... given that you are not exiting at 4,000 feet but rather 12,500, or 14,000 or
> > higher not uncommonly. What the number you feel safe with?
>
> I would consider _any_ increase to be to my benefit. _Any_ decrease is
> not. It is for you as you like to use the vertical separation as a
> cushion though. I hope your cushion doesn't deflate.
Whatever dude, just keep on diluting yourself.
> When everything's equal, how can it work better? Please give me a
> scenario. And we're still in the context of avoiding freefall
> collisions, right?
You have short term memory loss and ADD. I am no doctor, but that is pretty apparent to
me.
> > Eloy does RW out first and it works fine from what I hear. Great. I don't deny
> > that. Not every dz is Eloy Espen, despite what you think. Maybe there are a bunch
> > of Eloys in Norway, but not here dude. 300 plus US dzs last time I checked and only
> > a handful might be considered similiar to Eloy. You should be careful about how you
> > are making your decisions here.
>
> Why? I am using the dz that has the _most_experience_ with dropping
> skydivers in the _whole_world_, as an example. They do it more than
> anyone else out there. Now, how come I can't look at them and use them
> as an example? They fly the same planes as everyone else (Otters,
> Skyvan, Porter, KingAir, etc), they just have a hell of a lot more
> experience with it. So, what's different with Eloy? Is there something
> in the air in the desert that makes the exit order different from
> elsewhere in the world?
Oooooo Oooooo Espen... I beg you to reconsider your conclusions here. Now i see where your
lack of logic stems from (and hopefully others do).
Fly free...
Paulie D-21740
Robert Haig
Mary Jo Robinson <mjro...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Cause you are a freeflyer means you can't spot? Some weird logic if you
>ask me. You okay Snuffy?
> Fly free...
> Paulie D-21740
>
shit, if the GPS broke, just about anyone who learned how to skydive
at a GPS equipped DZ couldn't spot. most people that learned to
jump after I did (about the time GPS became a thing at my DZ) can't
spot. hell, the DZO gets pissed at us if we spot our own load.
I usually (when spotting a GPS spotted load) start climbout before the
light comes on. I've never (in the past 2 years) spotted a load where
people landed out because the spot was bad.
the people that come off AFF still don't know how to spot. I had a jumper
with almost 200 jumps ask me the other day, "So, how do you spot anyway??"
this is someone that is on a pretty serious 4-way team. She jumps a lot.
She has a licence. Yet, she wouldn't feel comfortable spotting a 4-way
out of a cessna.
That's messed up. When you have D-licenced people who don't know how
to spot other than waiting for the green light, that's messed up.
Maybe that's what he meant paulie, most freeflyers are relatively new to
the sport (less than 5 years) and don't know how to spot.
--
Rob
Robert Haig
>ask me. You okay Snuffy?
> Fly free...
> Paulie D-21740
>
shit, if the GPS broke, just about anyone who learned how to skydive
rh...@hackboy.com
>ask me. You okay Snuffy?
> Fly free...
> Paulie D-21740
>
shit, if the GPS broke, just about anyone who learned how to skydive
prof
Robert Haig wrote:
>
> In article <3AE51950...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Mary Jo Robinson <mjro...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Cause you are a freeflyer means you can't spot? Some weird logic if you
> >ask me. You okay Snuffy?
> > Fly free...
> > Paulie D-21740
> >
>
> shit, if the GPS broke, just about anyone who learned how to skydive
> at a GPS equipped DZ couldn't spot. most people that learned to
> jump after I did (about the time GPS became a thing at my DZ) can't
> spot. hell, the DZO gets pissed at us if we spot our own load.
>
I've had 5 off landings in 550 jumps. 4 of the 5 were spotted by a guy
with 8000+ jumps, a D license number below 1000, and who holds every
rating that is available. I don't believe spotting has very much to do
with when one learned to skydive.
A7WIENS
on: when you learned to jump or if you have licenses or some other kookie
reason
GIVE ME A BREAK- it is skill-plain and simple- if you practice it you are
better than if you don't.
Let's try to remember we are talking about looking down and checking for
aircraft and making an educated guess about the winds.....
Yes everyone with a licenese should 'know' but come on everyone with a license
should be able to land standing up and I think we can all agree not everyone
has mastered that 100% of the time.
Here is my style of spotting: Look out- try your best- if you need help ask,
jump and if I do a crappy job focus on landing safely and then go try again.
Ann T. Poblenz
freeflyer wrote:
> "Ann T. Poblenz" wrote:
> >
> > > > Epsom wrote a bunch o stuff:
> > >
> > > He would never do that. Is he new here too btw?
> > >
> >
> > ahhhh.. a Loki complex...me still thinks Alan wins.. he have more voices than you!!
>
> No he doesn't.
> No he doesn't.
> No he doesn't.
> No he doesn't.
> :o)
having one voice in your head that is
repetitive,repetitive,repetitive,repetitive,repetitive,
doesnt mean ya win:-P
> > > You're off to a good start. Keep 'em coming.
> > >>> well, I lost my touch after that hiatus.. I will work my way up..
> I'm pretty sure you'll catch right up.
> > > > hand me a beer
> > >> > Sorry, no can do. Meet me in Z-hills and I'll help you out :o)
> >> You are so helpful!!
> I know. Weird, ain't it?
>
actually... more like,....scary
:-)
TY
prof wrote:
> I've had 5 off landings in 550 jumps. 4 of the 5 were spotted by a guy
> with 8000+ jumps, a D license number below 1000, and who holds every
> rating that is available.
Did you look before you jumped?
Robert Haig
A7WIENS <a7w...@aol.com> wrote:
>Everyone talks about 'spotting' as this ability that you have or don't based
>on: when you learned to jump or if you have licenses or some other kookie
>reason
>
>GIVE ME A BREAK- it is skill-plain and simple- if you practice it you are
>better than if you don't.
>
>Let's try to remember we are talking about looking down and checking for
>aircraft and making an educated guess about the winds.....
I won't give you a break. I'm talking about people never being taught
what it means to spot. And those who were never get a chance to practice
because they never get to spot. The DZO may get pissed if they try.
so it's not "skill-plain and simple"
>Yes everyone with a licenese should 'know' but come on everyone with a license
>should be able to land standing up and I think we can all agree not everyone
>has mastered that 100% of the time.
>
>Here is my style of spotting: Look out- try your best- if you need help ask,
>jump and if I do a crappy job focus on landing safely and then go try again.
that's a perfectly ok spotting style. ask for help if you need it. I'm
glad that you may not need it. And I'm glad that you know when to ask for
help.
I don't care if there are a few people who can't spot that well. But
I'm worried about the people that were never taught to look for traffic.
I'm worried about the people who can't take an "educated guess about
the winds" because they were never educated.
the only place jumpers learn to spot anymore is at the cessna DZ's god
love them.
--
Rob
Robert Haig
prof <pr...@teamfunnel.com> wrote:
>
>I've had 5 off landings in 550 jumps. 4 of the 5 were spotted by a guy
>with 8000+ jumps, a D license number below 1000, and who holds every
>rating that is available. I don't believe spotting has very much to do
>with when one learned to skydive.
well, I never said that people pre-GSP knew how to spot. I said most people
in the post-GPS era don't konw how. You're apparently evidence of that
since you didn't look out of the plane before you jumpped. Or if you did
you didn't have enough practice spotting to know where you might land.
spotting has to do with being allowed to practice. The more GPS-only-spot
DZs we have, the less people can practice spotting,and therefore, the less
people we have who can spot well.
--
Rob
Ann T. Poblenz
prof
decision as to when to exit? I suspect that would be the end of
formation skydiving as we know it.
Special ALF 9
>>
>> prof wrote:
>>
>> > I've had 5 off landings in 550 jumps. >4 of the 5 were spotted by a guy
>> > with 8000+ jumps, a D license number below 1000, and who holds every
>> > rating that is available.
>>
>> Did you look before you jumped?
>
prof
Robert Haig wrote:
>
> In article <3AE6F994...@teamfunnel.com>,
> prof <pr...@teamfunnel.com> wrote:
> >
> >I've had 5 off landings in 550 jumps. 4 of the 5 were spotted by a guy
> >with 8000+ jumps, a D license number below 1000, and who holds every
> >rating that is available. I don't believe spotting has very much to do
> >with when one learned to skydive.
>
> well, I never said that people pre-GSP knew how to spot. I said most people
> in the post-GPS era don't konw how. You're apparently evidence of that
> since you didn't look out of the plane before you jumpped. Or if you did
> you didn't have enough practice spotting to know where you might land.
>
OK Rob, when you are a late diver in a 16 way, do you make your own
decision when to exit, or do you go when the rest of your group goes? Do
you get to the door after 12 have exited and decide to wait because you
think they left too early? If you do, do you get invited to jump with
the group again?
I've yet to jump at a DZ where the exit decision of an RW group is made
by committee with everyone agreeing on the spot. Perhaps you'll tell me
where you jump so I can come and see how this committee spotting
technique works.
prof
Special ALF 9 wrote:
>
> >TY wrote:
> >>
> >> prof wrote:
> >>
> >> > I've had 5 off landings in 550 jumps. >4 of the 5 were spotted by a guy
> >> > with 8000+ jumps, a D license number below 1000, and who holds every
> >> > rating that is available.
> >>
> >> Did you look before you jumped?
> >
> hummmm a Forrest Gump phrase springs to mind...."Stupid is as stupid does!" :->
>
You have made formation jumps, haven't you? Did you ever exit with the
others, or did you always go independently when you thought the spot was
just right?
Special ALF 9
>Robert Haig wrote:
>>
>> In article <3AE6F994...@teamfunnel.com>,
>> prof <pr...@teamfunnel.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >I've had 5 off landings in 550 jumps. 4 of the 5 were spotted by a
>guy
>> >with 8000+ jumps, a D license number below 1000, and who holds every
>> >rating that is available.
>I don't believe spotting has very much to do with when one learned to
skydive.
thats been a sheep whine since turbines
appeared...It may have been a good spot, just a slow climbout and exit by the
next formation. Sheep who don't pratice RW much often don't realize how much
time pass's from poor boarding order and the confusion shuffle that takes place
in the cabin & door before exit because they are preoccupied, be ready, be
snappy or be hosed! :)P
Special ALF 9
asks the great coyote who sed:
> hummmm a Forrest Gump phrase >springs to mind...."Stupid is as stupid >does!"
>:->
>You have made formation jumps, haven't >you? Did you ever exit with the
>others, or did you always go >independently when you thought the spot >was
just right?
yuh I got an eagle....maybe even a double eagle while a C, it goes like
this...I always checked the spot even if with bigtime RW people, the lowest
sheep knew I had my risers modified for distance, being a big guy I mostly flew
front float on the otter bigways---> even the comat zoo sheep were smart enuff
to know if I stepped off the rail before
everybody climbed out...it was best if the lessor mortals stayed in and went
around.
Although I pushed the edge on my distance more than once because nothing gave
me greater pleasure than sucking them skygoddy zp people into a cross country
RW and watching them land way way out while I flew on to the peas with my old
F111 Falcon. :->
TY
asked because when I landed off _everyone_ asked me that question. When I
answered that I was inside the plane holding onto chest straps of the 2 guys in
the door and couldn't see outside, I was then asked, "Well did you look down in
free fall?"
Also, if it bothered you to land off you might have offered to be the spotter
or have someone else do it rather than the same guy who kept giving you a bad
spot.
Special ALF 9
>me greater pleasure than sucking them skygoddy zp people into a cross country
>RW and watching them land way way out while I flew on to the peas with my old
>F111 Falcon. :-> Snuffy Smith
I believe theirs a word for that type of tricky
sumbitch--------->diabolicle! heh heh :)P
prof
TY wrote:
>
> That's a good point. I was just being a good ALF by asking that and I just
> asked because when I landed off _everyone_ asked me that question. When I
> answered that I was inside the plane holding onto chest straps of the 2 guys in
> the door and couldn't see outside, I was then asked, "Well did you look down in
> free fall?"
>
> Also, if it bothered you to land off you might have offered to be the spotter
> or have someone else do it rather than the same guy who kept giving you a bad
> spot.
>
Not bothered at all - there's hundreds of acres of flat farmland all
around the dz. I figure I can deal with 1% of the landings being off.
Two of the five were on 200+ way attempts, and you go when you're told
to or get axed. I don't think I would have got a good reception if I
asked to be the spotter on a 286 way, either. Another one of the five
was an inverted biplane jump at Quincy, and it's hard to climb back in
if you don't like the spot.
Jan Meyer
> OK Rob, when you are a late diver in a 16 way, do you make your own
> decision when to exit, or do you go when the rest of your group goes? Do
> you get to the door after 12 have exited and decide to wait because you
> think they left too early?
I wait so I can have a longer swoop. I need the practice.
--
Jan Meyer, D7833
RU a New Jumper?? - check out Study Guide for USPA License Exams
at http://www.MakeItHappen.com/products/uspaexam.html
mailto:Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com
http://www.MakeItHappen.com
http://www.DiveMaker.com
Master of Sheep
asks TY
>Are you suggesting that each person in a formation make his/her own
>decision as to when to exit? I suspect >that would be the end of
>formation skydiving as we know it.
looks to me like the average freeflyers r all over the sky anyway, if yer going
to funnel
dive might as well leave when ewe want to cuz if ewe didn't master RW first,
lacking any trick photo artist.... formation skydiving was over for ewe to
begin with. Focking bunch of easy out sheep! :-P
Snuffy (_?_) ohm ohm ohm
in or out
keep yer eye on the formation
Jerry K.
It's clear that you never *purposefully* flown head down and tried to
hold it with others at that speed-tried to say at that attitude *for
the *whole dive* prior to break off. I'm not a freeflyer-I can sit, I
can stand, I can even transition between the lot and go head down but
keeping a heading while head down and with others? No way and not
yet. Trust me-it's a lot tougher than you make it out to
be-definitely takes a lot more control than belly-flying.
All that being said-I think it's a good idea to learn to fly on your
belly first before learning to free-fly-you're gonna end up in that
position before you throw out anyway.
Okay-now it's your turn to tell us about your vast freeflying
experience.
...bsrp
...jlk
On 26 Apr 2001 03:41:21 GMT, pineywoo...@aol.com (Master of
freeflyer
>
> the people that come off AFF still don't know how to spot. I had a jumper
> with almost 200 jumps ask me the other day, "So, how do you spot anyway??"
>
> this is someone that is on a pretty serious 4-way team. She jumps a lot.
> She has a licence. Yet, she wouldn't feel comfortable spotting a 4-way
> out of a cessna.
I didn't know you jumped with Ann. Cool!
:o)
freeflyer
>
> Yes everyone with a licenese should 'know' but come on everyone with a license
> should be able to land standing up and I think we can all agree not everyone
> has mastered that 100% of the time.
Which, if any, of these two are mentioned in the SIM/BSR?
freeflyer
>
> freeflyer wrote:
>
> > > ....like RW out first? I don't know, why would you? :^P
> >
> > Tell me why it's inferior again from a safety standpoint.
>
> There are only so many 'agains' before it really isn't worth it anymore.
Really? If you believe in your system so much I would think you would
repeat it as many times as possible to make more people understand it.
After all, it seems like there are a lot of people who don't.
> > How about this then; if the switch group doesn't know what they're doing
> > then FF out first does not work as well as FF out last.
>
> As well?? That is assuming you will be fine just by putting FF out last which is
> completely untrue. Don't be delusioned.
There's a chance of something going wrong with both methods. I believe
that those chances increase when you put FF out first, because the exit
separation is more critical with that method.
> Maximum horizontal sep isn't going to happen with someone who isn't leaving the right delay
> between groups and that can happen with FF out last.
Sure, but that method gives you exit separation and an _additional_
horizontal separation, as opposed to _less_ horizontal separation. See
the difference?
> If there were some safety zone, a
> certain gap that guaranteed safety from collision just by putting FF out last, then I might
> hear your arguements, but there just isn't. You need a brain to make it work either way.
> That is primary, if you don't have that it really doesn't matter what you do.
Do you believe that both require the same amount of thought to it?
> Big sky
> theory in those cases...
That's definetely true when you believe that vertical separation will
save you.
> > > One: you can start jumprun sooner (FF gets less drift, then can climbout sooner).
> >
> > Agreed, that's a plus. But, due to the nature of the group after, won't
> > the SPOT be just as long?
>
> No, because they will drift more.
You mean the FS group, right? Now, to get the same _horizontal_ distance
between all groups _when_they_open_, I fail to see how the spot (ie.
time between first and last group leaving the plane) can be shorter.
Granted, the FF groups leave earlier than the FS groups would have had
they been first, but the first FS group (ie. the switch group) have to
wait a longer time in the plane to make up for their drift towards the
previous group. Right? Feel free to explain to me how this is possible.
> > If you want the horizontal separation to be
> > the same in both cases, then it doesn't matter except that you have more
> > time between the switch-groups. Right?
>
> Right. More time to spot (if really needed), check for other A/C (always needed at some
> dzs, and not done nearly enough by many jumpers) and to set up your exit.
Yes, but the distance the plane covers doesn't change if you want the
first and last group to open at the same place, and keep the horizontal
separation equal for the two cases. The only difference is that the
first FS group has to wait longer to make up for their drift.
So, again, shouldn't the spot (ie. the distance the plane covers and the
distance between where the first and last group opened) remain the same
with the two methods?
> I am basing my arguement of when and why freefly out first can be (or is) better. I didn't
> say all the time everywhere. Sounds like you might have ADD.
Fine. So, at Byron you change the order between the groups depending on
a)the number of groups in the plane, and b)the winds aloft? That makes
no sense. Why not stick to one method? Again, it's called KISS.
> > > Also, since
> > > you MUST be heads up to know when to exit whether it is RW out first or FF out first,
> >
> > But for one of them you need to be _more_ heads up. KISS.
>
> Now you are just being an ALF. And what a dumb statement... sorry, it just is. You make
> it work or you don't, there is no 'more' heads up or less.
How can it be just the same, especially if you switch between the two
from load to load. FF out first puts a lot of confidence in the switch
group to wait relatively long after the last FF group. With FF out last
the switch group can actually leave closer to the last FS group then
between each FS group, and still have the same horizontal separation
between all the groups.
> I have decided, I dont' care
> what exit order, if we are on the same plane on a high upper wind day, I am getting out
> after you or riding the plane down thanks.
Why don't you just follow one method, instead of relying on everyone to
be heads up on two?
> You obviously have trouble with long delays
> between groups.
And Bingo was his name!!
1) Humans want to follow a pattern, ie. they see a pattern and
subconsciously try to mimic it. Look at people walking down the street
in a group. They usually try to keep the same rhythm in their steps. The
same goes for people inside a plane. They see a rhythm between the
amount of time between the previous groups and they want to follow the
same rhythm, whether they know it's wrong or not.
2) The longer a person has to count seconds, the higher the chances of
them getting it wrong. And in 90% of the cases the person counts too
fast. I'd rather see them count as short as possible to make that error
less.
You might be thinking that you're supposed to look out of the plane and
check the distance the plane covers over the ground and not be counting
seconds. Well, I have yet to be at a dz where people don't rely on both
that and counting seconds. And on all of the boogies I've been to I've
been given a set amount of seconds to wait before exiting. I've never
been given a distance over the ground and then shown a map to figure out
how far that is on the ground.
> > > with FF out first, you not only get the horizontal sep. that you can get with RW out
> > > first, but now you get an *extra* (note: never primary) vertical gap.
> >
> > But I don't want that vertical gap. I want the best horizontal I can
> > get, without consideration of vertical.
>
> Duh, best horizontal is key. Maybe you are missing something here (or just trolling as I
> am being lead more and more to believe).
I'm not trolling, don't you worry. I just don't want vertical separation
to even be considered in the discussion. If you consider it, chances are
you are going to rely somewhat upon it.
> No. Sometimes the spot is past 'the top' but people drift downwind.
We actually spot to avoid that, ie. we consider the drift and try to put
the people out far enough upwind so they don't drift downwind of the
landing area. We have a lot of water around our dropzone, which makes
this very critical.
> The lower winds
> (3,000 and down...) don't always match the uppers (sounds like they frequently do at your
> dz).
No they don't, but the pilot usually knows what they are and lets us
know (ounds like your pilot doesn't do that at your dz).
> You can have a 30 knot upper wind (14,000) and very little at 2,000 so someone
> getting out right over the landing area, will drift downwind and then fly back under
> canopy.
If we drift downwind we won't be able to make it back under canopy in
many situations, that often means a water landing. Like I said, you must
be used to calm lower winds, or the spot isn't that critical at your dz.
> > I would consider _any_ increase to be to my benefit. _Any_ decrease is
> > not. It is for you as you like to use the vertical separation as a
> > cushion though. I hope your cushion doesn't deflate.
>
> Whatever dude, just keep on diluting yourself.
I'm not the one who keeps mentioning the vertical separation as "extra"
safety.
> > Why? I am using the dz that has the _most_experience_ with dropping
> > skydivers in the _whole_world_, as an example. They do it more than
> > anyone else out there. Now, how come I can't look at them and use them
> > as an example? They fly the same planes as everyone else (Otters,
> > Skyvan, Porter, KingAir, etc), they just have a hell of a lot more
> > experience with it. So, what's different with Eloy? Is there something
> > in the air in the desert that makes the exit order different from
> > elsewhere in the world?
>
> Oooooo Oooooo Espen... I beg you to reconsider your conclusions here.
Why? Care to take a poll with the largest dzs in the country (ie. the
ones with the most experience in dropping skydivers) and hear what the
majority does, and why?
> Now i see where your
> lack of logic stems from (and hopefully others do).
LOL! You tried that with Alan too. Hopefully others see through it ;o)
freeflyer
>
> > > >> > Sorry, no can do. Meet me in Z-hills and I'll help you out :o)
> > >> You are so helpful!!
> > I know. Weird, ain't it?
> >
>
> actually... more like,....scary
And there are no ulterior motives, I promise!! <eg>
prof
that doesn't change the spot. 8^)
Special ALF 9
>Just how much freeflying have you seen?
enuff to know the people in it are going to turn out to be skygoddy just like
the RW
people did.....ewe see its all relative, yew wud know that if ewe had any
experiance
kid. :-*
Master of Sheep
>Focking bunch of easy out sheep! :-P
Yuh and as long as we have goober eating wuffo's like JerryK/dink eating cheeze
& copping a skygod attitude on student status for booties @ L7 cumming into the
sport with their into wuffo money hussel skeems.....wanting to go straight to
the top without taking the time to learn the real skills, their ain't going to
be a real skydiver or any training cadre left. Just a seedy group of
------>whats in it for me......BOTTOM FEEDERS! HOOYAH :->
Dave Miller
2-1.05E.3. All students must receive training in the following areas,
sufficient to jump safely [E]
b. aircraft and exit procedures
e. canopy flight procedures
I would think "aircraft and exit procedures" includes spotting? Landing
standing up I would think is under "canopy flight procedures".
Dave
Dave Miller
From: "TY" <skyd...@net1plus.com>
Subject: Re: free flyers out first or last
>When I answered that I was inside the plane holding onto chest straps of
the 2 guys in
> the door and couldn't see outside, I was then asked, "Well did you look
down in
> free fall?"
I hope those people asking that question didn't expect you to change your
plan and do something different if you noticed it was a bad spot in
freefall. I have found that changing breakoff, tracking and opening
procedures on your own during the dive makes people grumpy at the best and
injured or dead at worst.
Dave
Master of Sheep
these minor mainstream problems, cuz 95% of them wudda stayed home! :->
Ann T. Poblenz
WOW!!!!
I like the way this is going!!!
Ann T. Poblenz
> "Ann T. Poblenz" wrote:
> >
> > > > >> > Sorry, no can do. Meet me in Z-hills and I'll help you out :o)
> > > >> You are so helpful!!
> > > I know. Weird, ain't it?
> > >
> >
> > actually... more like,....scary
>
> And there are no ulterior motives, I promise!! <eg>
Ok, "run for the hiiiills"
NOW IM scared:-)
Master of Sheep
place....AZREAL sent me forth to find out why none but ferrin peckerheds &
females come to the warriors gate to gain entrance.
I must go back and report to Flavious Titus my immediat surperior that only
sheep merchants appear to be left in the Continital USPA. Ah well Rome fell
because each generation became weaker and more self serving.... Beware the
horsemen sissy boys. :-*
freeflyer
>
> I am SOOO god I have _almost_ 200 jumps and a 4 digit D lic ###
>
> WOW!!!!
>
> I like the way this is going!!!
I chucked down the "200" thing to a typo and figured it was supposed to
be "1200". The rest was still spot on (pun intended) though, right? :o)
freeflyer
>
> > Which, if any, of these two are mentioned in the SIM/BSR?
>
> sufficient to jump safely [E]
> b. aircraft and exit procedures
> e. canopy flight procedures
>
> I would think "aircraft and exit procedures" includes spotting? Landing
> standing up I would think is under "canopy flight procedures".
I agree with the former, but the latter is quite a stretch. If you limit
it to "landing safely" (ie. without injury) then I think you might be on
to something. Tell the people trained on rounds that "landing standing
up" is part of "canopy flight procedures". I'm pretty sure they would
laugh at you.
--
Espen
ALF#1
freeflyer
>
> > > actually... more like,....scary
> >
> > And there are no ulterior motives, I promise!! <eg>
>
> Ok, "run for the hiiiills"
I'll be there on the 5th. How did you know? :o)
> NOW IM scared:-)
Be afraid, be very very afraid :o)
--
Espen
ALF#1
Special ALF 9
>When I answered that I was inside the >plane holding onto chest straps of
>the 2 guys in the door and couldn't see >outside, I was then asked, "Well did
you >look down in free fall?"
TY's right whiner.... doesn't matter If yer diveout on a cessna or first
diveout on an otter with 5 or 6 people hanging in the door ewe control the exit
count cuz the inexperianced people need to hang the rails, that means ewe also
have to look between the floaters legs and check the spot. Missed at least 2
chances to check the spot sheep.....ewe got no one but yourself to blame for
getting the formation hosed! pooooossy :)P
Special ALF 9
>count cuz the inexperianced people need >to hang the rails, that means ewe
>also
>have to look between the floaters legs >and check the spot. Missed at least 2
first chance was a prime one,
CUZ
if its seriously bad shove them off the step and call for a go around, this is
the best way to teach sheep to look before they climb out and to be snappy
about the climb out. Geeze is all thats left out there,
politically correct teaching? :->
Dave Miller
"freeflyer" <zepp...@iastate.edu> wrote in message
news:3AE8466E...@iastate.edu...
> Dave Miller wrote:
> > 2-1.05E.3. All students must receive training in the following areas,
> > sufficient to jump safely [E]
> > b. aircraft and exit procedures
> > e. canopy flight procedures
> > I would think "aircraft and exit procedures" includes spotting? Landing
> > standing up I would think is under "canopy flight procedures".
>
> I agree with the former, but the latter is quite a stretch. If you limit
> it to "landing safely" (ie. without injury) then I think you might be on
> to something. Tell the people trained on rounds that "landing standing
> up" is part of "canopy flight procedures". I'm pretty sure they would
> laugh at you.
> --
> Espen
> ALF#1
That's ok I've been laughed at by better (or worse?). :o) I will agree
though, landing safely is probably the goal (learning PLF's and all that).
Dave
Jerry K.
alone hold the attitidue with others for the entire skydive until
breakoff. Funnelling lowtimers with not enough sense to jump with
someone else doesn't count.
You would have a better idea on just how "easy" (heh) freeflying is if
you had ever tried it, done it. The "experienced" freeflyers make it
look easy-it's not.
Again-you're just bleating about something which you have no
experience, let alone idea about.
You don't know about freeflying.
Whether the freelfyers turn out *skygoddy* or not is beside the point
but I will say this-some of the biggest (literally and figuratively)
"skygoddy" skydivers seem to be the ones that have retired.
...bsrp
...jlk
Special ALF 9
>You don't know about freeflying.
Its been around for a while, certainly before the little cat eating peacocks in
the baggy pants showed up. The informal style wuz called the funnel and the
competition type wuz called style. BTW I owned one of the first sitsuits in
Texas.....think I wuzzn't progressive boot? :)P
Jerry K.
Sheep) bleated mightily:
>
>Yuh and as long as we have goober eating wuffo's like JerryK/dink eating cheeze
>& copping a skygod attitude on student status for booties @ L7 cumming into the
>sport with their into wuffo money hussel skeems.....
Well, the last time you actually "saw" me I was jumping with my
friends at Beaumont-all of which had *way* more jumps than I did.
Tell me how you know that I cop "a skygod attitude on student status
for booties @ L7 cumming into thesport with their into wuffo money
hussel skeems."
As long as we have self centered arrogant wannabee skygods who can no
longer skydive ranting their drivel on an electronic newsgroup and
staying away from dropzones where they would have no place to hide and
would be pegged immediately for the bitter losers that they are there
will be more beer for the rest of us and a LOT more room on the
airplane. To scared to try your act "live". POOOOOOSY!!!!
>wanting to go straight to
>the top without taking the time to learn the real skills, their ain't going to
>be a real skydiver or any training cadre left. Just a seedy group of
>------>whats in it for me......BOTTOM FEEDERS! HOOYAH :->
Hell, I'm just in it for the fun. If I wanted to go "sraight to
the top without taking the time to learn the real skills" then I'd
just do nothing but a single pursuit and rant about how freeflying
ain't hard at all.
Just a lone entity on an electronic forum transmitting from an
isolated rolling (and fetid) bunker in the woods, "Hey all y'all! ME!
ME! BAA-BAA-BING! BAA-BAA-BOOM! ME! ME! HOOYAH!"
...bsrp
...jlk
BTW Organizing the skydiving portion of an airshow up in Nacogdoches
this weekend (lots and LOTS) of free jumps so email me for details if
you want to go. Obviously you won't be able to jump but if you want
some free rides in a DC3, C47, and a couple of Beech 18's (possibility
of the same out of a B17 and B24 -no shit) for old times sake then
contact me and I'll shoot you the details.
Jerry K.
know that freeflying (or not flying specifically on the belly) has
been around longer than a lot of freeflyers, of course. That being
said would you not agree that flying not on the belly takes a bit more
control than flying on the belly-especially with other people flying
in the neighborhood?
So, what prompted you to get that sit-suit in the first place?
...bsrp
...jlk
Ann T. Poblenz
The Wrights brothers did it!!!
Special ALF 9
>cheeze
the
>>sport with their into wuffo money hussel >skeems.....
>As long as we have self centered arrogant >wannabee skygods who can no
>longer skydive ranting their drivel on an electronic newsgroup and
>staying away from dropzones
They call it retired but keeping yer eye on the new anals and....well as bad as
the social aspects were before....they seem to have gone downhill with these
new DZ's popping up, I guess they gotta scrape the bottom of the barrel
for city money now to feed them big twins......besides
I only went out to jump not socialize or in yer groups case.....to sheer the
sheep. Well maybe I did go to stir the anals...just a little......AND I STILL
GOT THE TOUCH!
HOOYAH! :->
&
>Hell, I'm just in it for the fun
ewe don't appear to be having much fun
kid. :-*
Special ALF 9
>asks hiz hero the great outlaw. :>
>So, what prompted you to get that sit-suit >in the first place?
>
>...bsrp
>...jlk
>
RW gits boreing....not all my friends died in the sport a few just got sick of
the system and when they finally got flat bored with RW they quit skydiving. I
tried to keep it fresh and stayed one jump to long. :->
Jerry K.
>
>They call it retired but keeping yer eye on the new anals and....well as bad as
>the social aspects were before....they seem to have gone downhill with these
>new DZ's popping up,
Tell us what you know about the *current* social aspects at dropzones.
> guess they gotta scrape the bottom of the barrel
>for city money now to feed them big twins.
They were scraping the bottom of the barrel back in the
earlies-there's just more and larger barrels these days.
>....besides
>I only went out to jump not socialize or in yer groups case.....to sheer the
>sheep. Well maybe I did go to stir the anals...just a little......AND I STILL
>GOT THE TOUCH!
>HOOYAH! :->
Haven't seen you stirring the "anals" at a dz since, I dunno 1996 or
1997? Talk about "taking the easy way out!"
>ewe don't appear to be having much fun
>kid. :-*]
Appearances can be deceiving, of course but what do you know about
appearances? You haven't seen me at a dz in a good 4 or 5 years, if
ever. Trust me, it's all still the same-we have fun-there's no other
reason to do it (for me). My left eyebrow is still singed from that
lazy stroll through the fire and this weekend me and a bunch of my
friends will be jumping old airplanes. Art told me this after my
level 3 during the debrief, "It just gets better and better."
I think (IMHO) that the concept of other skydivers still having fun
while you (unfortunately) can not bothers you. Be a man. Stop hiding
behind the keyboard. Take your act live to a dz and go for it.
Sometimes you just have to say, "Oh well, what the hell!" (thanks,
Joe)
...bsrp
...jlk
Jerry K.
jump with you? Surprising!
System is as system does. You don't like the system, you change the
system. How could anyone anyone get bored with skydiving? Unless
they were kinda "skygoddy" in the first place, that is. Heh.
...bsrp
...jlk
TY
prof wrote:
> Not bothered at all - there's hundreds of acres of flat farmland all
> around the dz. I figure I can deal with 1% of the landings being off.
Sounds nice! I need to come to Illinois!
> Another one of the five
> was an inverted biplane jump at Quincy, and it's hard to climb back in
> if you don't like the spot.
lmao Guess not!
ALF#007