skr 1 #26 March 30, 2003 >I think low-pulling has declined over the years but I'm curious >to see if many people still like humming it occasionally. I wrote a poem once in the mid 70's which I can only remember the last few lines of - ... - So I always pull high now - Except for those times - A certain feeling in the air - To take it on down - A little closer to the ground I was never a low puller, although I was around a lot of people who were. I mostly pulled at 2,000 or even 2,500. A few times though... I remember one day at Oceanside we had clouds at 2,000 ft and we were doing relative work from the Cessna. And one day in 1970 I was down below Mexico City helping to set up for the first Pan American something or other meet and I thought I would just see, so I pulled at 800 ft. But I never really liked it down there like some people seemed to. These days I mostly pull up around 3,000 ft. I'm older and slower and don't crave that kind of excitement. I've already seen what's down there. Plus today's chutes take for fucking ever to open, and their malfunctions are way more complicated and violent. The only time, sometimes when I have a good track going right over the hangars and packing area I feel a small urge, but even then I'll throw at around 2,000. After all, I'm sliding down the hypotenuse, so some of that opening distance is horizontal, right?? :-) :-) Skr Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikeat10500 12 #27 March 31, 2003 Quote> These days I mostly pull up around 3,000 ft. I'm older and slower and don't crave that kind of excitement. Same here...it's not a question of limitations, just don't need to test them anymore. Quote> Plus today's chutes take for fucking ever to open, and their malfunctions are way more complicated and violent. Skr Which brings me to my question. It looks like you have been in the sport a lot longer than I...Do you think gear has truly become safer over the years or just technically superior in performance?----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skr 1 #28 March 31, 2003 >Do you think gear has truly become safer over the years >or just technically superior in performance? Technically superior. The stuff I started on (1962) was perfectly safe, even fashionable if you liked olive drab :-) :-) Is a square safer than a round? Well, you have fewer unintentional water landings (the leading cause of death in the 60's), but a whole lot of landing in a turn fatalities. Do 3 rings work better than capewells? Yes, but the only reason we started cutting away was these new fangled canopies with their violent malfunctions. Safety is mostly a human thing, not a gear thing, at least for the typical gear you see in today's sport parachuting world. Skr Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikeat10500 12 #29 April 1, 2003 SKR Thanks...I thought I was the only one who felt that way. We had a DZ here in Canada that was in operation for 26 yrs. Round/Round manual deployed belly mounts, and cuttaways were not taught to students"capewells". First off ,I have never been there or know the DZO. I do not know for sure but have heard of only one fatality"power line strike" in all this time. So I figure they were not smoking in at terminal on a regular basis. No RSL/AAD . I'm not saying we should return to days of old, it's just I'm not sure how much safer the sport really is today. Like you say...safety is a state of mind. just thinking out loud...mike----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
murrays 0 #30 April 1, 2003 Mike,You are correct. The only student fatality experienced at the now-closed dz you refer to was a power line electrocution.-- Murray "No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymick 0 #31 April 4, 2003 Never gone low intentionally, but i have heard the 1500' alarm on my Dytter go off about 3-4 times (under canopy or during deployment, not in freefall) All of them were pretty much on larger jumps with unfamiliar jumpers that funelled, I would rather go a bit low if I cant see everyone rather then risk a collision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #32 September 3, 2003 It used to be fun before kids and responsibilities. Everyone had a 7-cell, F-111 square, reliable as hell, cut like the base canopies are now. You could take it down a ways and put your trust in those canopies and maybe some fast reflexes if you needed it. You've got to pay attention when you're deep in the beeps, though. What's really dangerous is to be kinda low but have no clue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattyBoy 0 #33 September 3, 2003 You need a category for 'not yet'! I may be gullible but at least I have a magic fish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
