From: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: how often does this happen?
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:12:06 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

Ok Eric...get your asbestos shorts...:-)


In article <1992Aug31.185924.25915@eng.ufl.edu> esj@viper.eng.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson) writes:
>Well, Javalin student rigs can be ordered SOS or dual handle, and have
>had the reserve side main pull for 2 years now. Ive been real pleased 
>with them, and like them better then the student Vectors. 

That doesn't surprise me.  In fact, it may have been the Javalin where I
first saw that reserve side handle.

>
>Jerry asks:
>>(BTW, Why do student Vectors have belly bands? Didn't the sport decide 
>>those were needless and risky?)
>
>BB's are risky only with a throwout system. With a ripcord a twisted belly 
>band is just uncomfortable. Why are they there? Well on our student Vectors
>thats where the Sentinal brain box is mounted.

There are proven better ways.  Why stick with riskier methods when dealing
with low time students?



>SOS advantages: simple, easy to teach, more likly to be correctly operated 
>by a freaked out student in deep doodoo. Students don't need to worry about 
>the complexity of the two handle system until after they have quite a bit 
>more "air-awareness". 

Bingo!


>SOS disadvantages: Not real skydiving gear, which necessitates emergency 
>procedure retraining. This retraining is often done after the student has
>graduated, and may or may not be as formal or organized as "regular" student
>training. Also this is often done at the same time the student tranasistions
>from ripcord to throw out or pull out. Lots of stuff for a baby skydiver to 
>assimilate at once. 20-100 jumps is a dangerous period for these and other
>reasons. 

The advantageous of a dual system seem to benefit the Jumpmasters more
than the students.  The student's safety - on the 1st jump - should be
more important than possible *minor* retraining differences 15 or more
jumps down the road.

Students will *always* be learning new things.  They go to throw-out, 
why should that require a different cutaway system?  The justification
above seems (to me) a bit contrived.  Comparing the amount of new material
a novice must assimilate going to a throwout - even with a new 
cutaway procedure- is far less than a level 1 student is expected to master.
It seems this reasoning is burdening the 1st jumper over a more 
experienced jumper.  


>Either system is perfectly safe with complete training, followed by 
>proper performence. Bad training and/or bad performence can mess up either.

The same can be said for small thermonuclear weapons:-) (so whats yur point?)


>At my DZ we teach the two handle system. The emergency procedures are 
>always "cutaway and pull your reserve". And yes, 2 or 3 times a year we have
>a reserve ride because a student doing a PRCP pulls the cutaway, and then the 
>jumpmaster or static line activates the main, followed by the reserve.
>(thanks RSL ;-)

IMO, The RSL should be present on either system for students.
And it seems most novices are getting RSL on their own rigs anyway, so
why have a dual system at all? 


>
>In a perfect world I would want a SOS on all static line students and
>two handle for all freefall. 

YUCK!  Put a SOS on all of 'em.  Let them learn the more dynamic dual
point cutaway procedures when they have less new material to master.


>Typically a student doing a freefall (weather AFF I or after a static line
>progression) will be sticking with the sport. 

*If they survive that 1st jump.*


>Might as well get them in
>sport gear when their under total instructional control. 

Well hell, give `em a Sabre 120 and teach em to front riser!  Why
mess around with this student stuff...get `em right into the sport!


>One jump thrill seekers
>are better served with as easy to operate gear as possible.

ALL students are best served with gear that is as easy to operate
as possible.  How do we differentiate between one-jump thrill 
seekers and people who will stick with it?  And why should that
dictate what type of gear they get?

With students, there should only be one concern: Safety- maximize the
fun at minimum risk.  A dual point system increases complexity and
is unlikely to increase either the fun or decrease the risk for
a low time student.

As the student
progresses through their training, they will be able to better 
understand the implications of 
certain procedures and equipment design.  Then they can progress
at their own pace.


>Ej

Sorry, didn't mean to scorch you too bad...
I love a good argument:-)

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