From: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: how often does this happen?
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:59:18 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

Note:

To interested readers: this whole thread is 99% academic.  While some
improvements may be made by going one way or the other, students
operating the wrong handles is rarely a problem.  It almost like
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

But some of us (like me) enjoy making blanket statements to see if they 
can withstand scrutiny from the vast and unpayed research department 
that is the net...

(:-)

In article <1992Sep1.012824.14676@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Daniel Briggs) writes:

>If you train them to always cut away, there's not
>really much more thought involved than for a single handle.  As the student
>matures, you can gradually introduce the idea that in some situations it
>might be better to skip the cutaway part.  But you haven't moved the
>position of the main and emergency handles on him, which could be just as
>fatal to a transitioning student as what you're worried about for a first
>timer.  

Ok.  The whole thread boils down to whether retraining is riskier
than having two important handles even remotely near each other.

I might possibly under some circumstances, be persuaded that *maybe*
there could be a remote miniscule chance that dual systems could work. :-(


>And I do think that the main handle should be on the hip from the
>start.
>
Me too.


>Take a look at your latest Paragear, btw, to see what the manufacturers

Good idea...I need to get one:-)

>>If the student fails to deal with the extra complexity, the retraining 
>>issue becomes moot.  The overall objective for early level students
>>should be *safety*, NOT transition convenience some 15 jumps down the road.
>
>Well, actually I'd argue that the overall objective is to minimize total
>deaths, period.  And it's not transitional convenience, it's transitional
>*safety*.  You're not doing a jumper any favors by pounding it into his
>head that the shiny handle is the one to pull when something goes wrong.

Remember- the heads up students will do fine with either system.  Its the
"slow" student who is behind the power curve who will be most liekly
to screw up in a real situation.  


>If our newly transitioned student dumps his reserve into a malfunctioning
>main, that's all there is to it.  If a first jump student freezes up over
>too many handles, that might all there is to it, but maybe it'll be an AAD
>save.  

Remember also - the situation could be one where a student takes a good
situation and turns it into a nightmare by pulling accidentally the
wrong handle as they go for the r/c.  In a real emergency, the student 
who cuts away will have an RSL or AAD help him get a reserve out.  
A student who *doesn't* cutaway could have serious problems. An sos doesn't
allow the student the option of failing to cutaway, and minimizes the
chance of them pulling the wrong handle as they go for the R/C in the 
normal situation.


>AFF students "should" be put in proper (student) gear from the beginning.

Right!  And proper is what is safest for the student at that particular
time in their training.  Future considerations should only come into
play if they pose such a large risk that preparations must be made
now in order to insure safety later.  I don't think this is the case
with the retraining argument (that is simply my opinion).


>BTW, Jerry -- That was a nice article in _Parachutist_ this month.  

Thanks, I really appreciate it. (Everyone!)

Jerry
-- 
Domain: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu		    Jerry Sobieski
  UUCP:	uunet!mimsy!jerrys		University of Maryland
 Phone:	(301)405-6735		Institute for Advanced Computer Studies
 					College Park, Md 20742
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving