Low pull

[DanG 1]

Quote

You missed my point. I have one rule. "When it's time to pull, PULL!", regardless of whatever else may be happening.

I agree with what you are saying, and always found the priority thing a little confusing.

The only way it makes sense to me is to think of what the result might be if you took out the first priority (pull) and were left with only the other two (pull on time, pull stable). There are some situations where waiting for pull time might not be the best decision. You may want to pull early. If you're taught that your first priority is pulling on time, some students might take that to mean that they have to wait until their pull altitude, regardless of what else might be going on.

- Dan G

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

obfuscate

1 a : darken b : to make obscure
2 : confuse
intransitive verb : to be evasive, unclear, or confusing

---

I learned a new word today.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[JohnMitchell 16]

[danielcroft 2]

I have an Optima with free fall and canopy alarms. I actually don't like the canopy alarms because (I'm not exactly a big swooper!) they're too much of a crutch IMO. I had my first Optima stolen & when I didn't have one I actually felt a lot better about my awareness. I got a new one because I'm free flying (well, trying to ) and the free fall alarms are pretty handy for that.

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

I dont mean for it to replace your current alti or your eyes but buying an audible alti is the best money u can spend. If AADs are going to be compulsory then i think audibles should be as well. Its a bit hard to forget to pull when you have a crazy loud buzzer going off that is vibrating your ear drum like mad.

I've never been a big fan of battery operated skydivers.


Train your mind, body, EYES to understand and react...the gizmos are wonderful back-ups.

Never depend on electronic devices...never know when a nuke going off nearby will EM wave yer stuff!

this is what I was taught. Not to long ago there was a guy with about 60-70 jumps that pulled incredibly low.....was close to having his AAD activate. He had been jumping with only an audible so he just kept waiting and waiting for it to sound off. He had changed the altitude it went off at for that particular jump and in his rush didn't set it right. Needless to say the DZO took it way from him so he would have to get an altimeter and use it. No one had noticed he had been jumping without an altimeter on his wrist either. Anyways, the DZO chose that as an opportunity to make a point to the low jump number people like me! It is obviously a great tool but you should never become so reliant you are like a robot waiting for it to beep.

[buff 0]

I use an audible but it's mainly only for freeflying. It's set at 5K (go to belly time). At the home DZ, I usually can tell 5K by looking around and when I glance at my alti, I'm usually 100 to 200 high and then the alert goes off.

I don't change the dytter if I'm doing RW, because I'm usually checking between points and when the alert goes off at 5K, I know we have a little time left to get that last turn in.

But then it's Kansas where it's flat and there is nothing to BASE so low pulling is all there ya got

It's called the Hillbilly Hop N Pop dude.
If you're gonna be stupid, you better be tough.
That's fucked up. Watermelons do not grow on trees! ~Skymama

[ghost47 18]

Quote

I agree with what you are saying, and always found the priority thing a little confusing.

To me, it makes sense to think about it this way:

When you step out of the plane, the one thing you have to do is pull. If you do nothing else, pull. If the option is pull or don't pull, always choose pull. Doesn't matter if you're low, high, stable, unstable.

Okay, so you're pulling, no matter what.

Second priority, if you can pull at the right altitude, do that. If the choice is pull at the right altitude while unstable or wrong altitude while stable, right altitude while unstable wins every time.

Third, if you can pull at the right altitude while stable, that's better. So if the choice is pull at the right altitude while stable or pull at the right altitude while unstable, then pull at the right altitude while stable is best.


Now, I think experienced jumpers have a little more leeway on this. For example, in a standard 4-way after break-off and tracking, I think it's better to pull at 3300 while stable rather than 3500 while unstable, even if 3500 is your pull altitude. Or if you discover that someone is pulling 10 feet to your right at your pull altitude of 3500, you might track away and take it down to 2500, reasoning that the chances of problems from opening at 2500 are smaller than the chances of problems from opening at 3500 while next to someone.

But for students, I think it makes sense that we drill into them that they must pull no matter what, and secondarily, if they can pull at the right altitude, that's better, and third, if they can do both of those while stable, that's best.

[pchapman 279]

Quote

Quote

I have one rule. "When it's time to pull, PULL!", regardless of whatever else may be happening.

I agree with what you are saying, and always found the priority thing a little confusing.

Also agreed.
The rules shouldn't be taught in that 3 point form. They aren't prescriptive, they don't tell someone what to do. You can't use them as a guide while in freefall.

To figure out what to do, one has to parse all three statements, figure out which to apply, then rank them to get the one of highest priority. And one has to assume extra information for #1, "Pull", because it doesn't mean to pull right away even when above normal pull height.

And then if you do whistle through deployment height, you might say, "All that matters is #1, to pull, while pulling at the correct altitude is secondary. So does that mean I can suck it down a little more, because I still plan to pull?"

And if you are a student starting to spin in freefall, and it is getting worse, it seems that #2 is more important -- I'd better wait until the right altitude to pull, rather than pulling now before I get spinning really fast, because #3 pulling while stable isn't that important.

While I'm getting a little silly with it, the gaps in the logic of the three rules are pretty wide if you look for them.

At least the USPA SIM does put a simple version of the rule up front, before getting into the confusing set of three:

Quote

1. Pull priorities:
a. Jumpers must deploy at the planned altitude,
regardless of stability.
b. Priorities are in the following order of importance
(top down):
(1) Pull.
(2) Pull at the correct altitude.
(3) Pull while stable.

[2008 SIM, didn't check for 2009]

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

To me, it makes sense to think about it this way:


But for students, I think it makes sense that we drill into them that they must pull no matter what, and secondarily, if they can pull at the right altitude, that's better, and third, if they can do both of those while stable, that's best

Wait until you've trained a lot of people. You will be looking for the shortest, simplest, most unambiguous way to teach anything and everything. The more complex you make any lesson, the more likely someone, someday will get it wrong.

Instructors, am I right on this one?

[ghost47 18]

Quote

Wait until you've trained a lot of people. You will be looking for the shortest, simplest, most unambiguous way to teach anything and everything. The more complex you make any lesson, the more likely someone, someday will get it wrong.

Well, I haven't trained anyone, so I'll take the word of people who have. But isn't it important to tell the student that pulling at the right altitude is more important than pulling stable? In other words, if I'm low AND on my back, what do I do? Do I try to flip over and pull or do I just pull?

Similarly isn't it important to tell a student that being stable at pull time is a good thing, and they should try to do it?

I guess for me, when my instructor taught me pull, pull at the right altitude, and pull stable, it just made sense. And, when someone else in my class asked the question of what to do if unstable at pull time, the instructor was able to point to the priorities and say, is it more important to pull at the right altitude or while stable? Seemed to work.

But hey, that was only four students, three of whom don't seem to jump anymore So I'll concede to the more knowledgeable.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

I don't change the dytter if I'm doing RW, because I'm usually checking between points and when the alert goes off at 5K, I know we have a little time left to get that last turn in.

You have the rest of your life to get that last point in. Bad habit to get into.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

But isn't it important to tell the student that pulling at the right altitude is more important than pulling stable? In other words, if I'm low AND on my back, what do I do? Do I try to flip over and pull or do I just pull?

Similarly isn't it important to tell a student that being stable at pull time is a good thing, and they should try to do it?

All that is covered by the simple statement "When it's time to pull, PULL!"

Don't try to "get stable", PULL! That's how I was trained, and it made perfect sense. One sentence covers everything you asked and said above, I feel.

Yes, we do tell the student that parachutes work better when you're stable during deployment. It would be nice to be stable when you pull.

When it's time to pull, PULL!

Anyway, that one sentence worked for me when the chutes were round, reserves were on the front, and the Cypres had not been invented.

[linebckr83 3]

If your planned breakoff altitude is 4k on an RW jump, the 5 or 6 seconds passing between a 5k alarm and your breakoff time is pretty easy to guess. I do the same thing, and its pretty easy to tell when you're still turning points past where you should be. Just pay attention as usual, with the alarm being a friendly little reminder that you're freefall is coming to an end.

I know what dependence on an audible feels like. I bought one at 9 jumps because I was so scared about losing altitude awareness. Eventually I pulled it out for 50 jumps until I got used to not having it. Now its a reminder that I barely pay attention to because I pay attention with my hand alti.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[mjosparky 4]

Disclaimer: This is just my opinion.

I think it is better to set it at or below break off. When you hear it go off you only have one action to take, turn and run.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

Disclaimer: This is just my opinion.

I think it is better to set it at or below break off. When you hear it go off you only have one action to take, turn and run.

Some big way attempts have the concept of a "breakoff altitude" and a "breakoff harddeck", usually set 500 or 1000 feet lower. This mainly happens with big ways 100+ in size.

For example, in later jumps of Men's World Record, I later reconfigured it to the breakoff harddeck rather than breakoff altitude. That way, I pay attention to other breakoff signals from the centre that should occur by breakoff harddeck (the point where I'm allowed to breakoff independently and race for my life out of the formation)

Slightly delayed breakoff signals are normal for the last few attempts of a record or major big way (including World Team), when everyone is very orderly, non-chaotic, and breaking off in very reliable break-off teams -- a stable formation at 6000 feet is safer than a massive mess at 7000 feet.

For example, on a jump where outer-wave breakoff was say, 7000 or 6500 feet, I reconfigured it to 6000 feet or 5500 feet for those jumps. Which meant I'd theoretically race for my life out of the formation if no breakoff signal occurs and my whacker neighbours aren't breaking off yet. (Never has happened, fortunately). In some cases, oganizers may intentionally signal up to about 3 or 4 seconds late, but before breakoff hard deck, if they think it's safe delay the breakoff slightly, on the neat, orderly, final attempts, in order to give time for the last two or three people to dock successfully and declare a record.

In fact, there's more airspace separation from final-day lowered-breakoff jumps, than the separation on first-day higher-breakoff jumps, because the jumpers have dialed-in their tracking over the few days of record attempts...

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

For example, on a jump where outer-wave breakoff was say, 7000 or 6500 feet, I reconfigured it to 6000 feet or 5500 feet for those jumps. Which meant I'd theoretically race for my life out of the formation if no breakoff signal occurs and my whacker neighbours aren't breaking off yet. (Never has happened, fortunately). In some cases, oganizers may intentionally signal up to about 3 or 4 seconds late, but before breakoff hard deck, if they think it's safe delay the breakoff slightly, on the neat, orderly, final attempts, in order to give time for the last two or three people to dock successfully and declare a record.

I find this to be a dangerous attitude. Putting the importance of a record ahead of the goal of safety and survival.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 2,996]

>Putting the importance of a record ahead of the goal of safety
>and survival.

Every record I've been on has traded off safety for (potential) completion. The best organizers know where to draw that line.

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

>Putting the importance of a record ahead of the goal of safety
>and survival.

Every record I've been on has traded off safety for (potential) completion. The best organizers know where to draw that line.

Yep. Gotta live with that. Swoopers take risks, bigway jumpers take a different kind of risk.

We do the delayed breakoff technique for the final jumps of all 100+ way attempts, events, etc.

Sometimes it's breakoff timing is even choreographed using radio headsets between the videographers and the center organizer, as was I believe done in the World Record attempts, the 400-way formation holding for 4.2 seconds to meet the minimum 3 second requirement (at the time) for it to be a record.

Other jumps are ordered to go by the audible (often Guy Wright sequential big ways, 40-ways) -- he is strict about you breaking off at exactly the announced breakoff altitude (there is no breakoff harddeck on those jumps by that specific organizer), however, the World Record goals are different.

During one of the Perris 100-way camps, I have been part of 99-way that actually completed AFTER the first person broke off because they listened to their audible rather than the signal from center (occuring 2 seconds later). Because that *specific* dive was ordered to resist listening to audible and to follow center signal, it would have beena complete 100-way, had the outer jumper stayed docked. That person undocked too early one second before the last person docked.

Another perspective to view it: The real breakoff altitude is "really" 6000 feet, but is announced at 6500 feet. They only "use" the real, lowered breakoff altitude during the final jumps. I just call it the planned breakoff altitude and the breakoff harddeck. Nothing /too/ unsafe about that.

Or it's called a "breakoff altitude range", all signalled by the center -- same thing as a "breakoff" (high) and "breakoff hard deck" (low). The high breakoff is used on (1) first days of the jumps (2) whenever the formation funnels, (3) whenever it's not appropriate to bring it lower -- such as the organizer thinks the formation is unstable, wavy, dicey, or incomplete, or that previous jumps some people needed to dial-in their tracking, etc.

Semantics, semantics.

That said, it is very clear that when everyone is doing identical slots on identical record attempts, often as many as 20 attempts over a few-day period. It has become my experience that first-day breakoffs at higher altitude are more scary and chaotic, than the final-day breakoff at 500 feet lower altitude, and we all have much more airspace on that final day. As a result, I argue that the final day jump is much safer than the first day or two. I argue there is /already/ a safety margin in the breakoffs, it's simply adaptive as the jumpers get used to the formation.

Also, once the breakoff signal start, the subsequent brekoffs (2nd wave, 3rd wave, etc) are signalled by the center in succession by the center, sometimes in an ever-slightly-more rapid succession, such as every 800 feet rather than 1000 feet between the final waves, if the first breakoff wave was signalled slightly lower.

For more info about the existence of delayed breakoffs, see the break-off "Hard Deck" instructions at Jump For The Cause http://www.jumpforthecause.com/formation_info.html
In the third diagram, observe that the high break off and the low break off (the break off hard deck listed in the very far-right column) is a 1000 foot delta.

P.S. I docked on cpoxon during the 122-way Men's World Record.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Some big way attempts have the concept of a "breakoff altitude" and a "breakoff harddeck", usually set 500 or 1000 feet lower. This mainly happens with big ways 100+ in size.

Yea, I know. I have been on a few big ways.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

Yea, I know. I have been on a few big ways.

I knew you knew.

My reply is just more educational for the general bigway-unaware readers -- there are the additional choreographing of a big way as "tracking teams" and "breakoff hard decks"

That said, it's kinda getting off topic of the original poster, even though there's a subtopic of low pulls relating to big ways. Rather, more, I think I need to be punished for thread hijacking. (cpoxon and billyvon?)