Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 7/17/84; site link.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!link!msb
From: msb@link.UUCP (Mike S. Balenger x8789)
Newsgroups: net.rec.skydive
Subject: JM-assisted pilot chutes
Message-ID: <358@link.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 14:48:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: link.358
Posted: Wed Oct 16 14:48:04 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Oct-85 00:08:24 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 30



This is a *real* case, not idle speculation!

This weekend, out of the corner of my eye, I watched what I figured to be a
good 5-10 second freefall.  It looked strange, though.  Something was wrong.
I finally was told that that 'funny white thing' on the jumper was his pilot
chute -- JM assisted.  The student had backflipped off the step on a
JM-assisted 2nd jump.  It wrapped around his leg, and refused to pull out
the main.  After 5-10 seconds of shaking, it finally came free.

Would he have started emergency procedured?  Luckily, it is a question that
doesn't need an answer.  But probability theory has a way of eating away at
luck.  Also, this is not the kind of experience that promotes return visits
by students.

We hear about students-in-tow, but how many have there really been.  I would
bet that the number of trapped pilot chutes is larger than the number of
trapped static lines.  I've never heard of a bad static line jump (except
the one which wasn't attached).  I've heard of two bad JM-assisted pilot
chute jumps.  From my little view of the world, I'd say that this was a
trend.  The article in Parachutist sure seems to believe this also.

What do you think?

Michael S. Balenger   ihnp4!link!msb   (201) 949-8789   {Cornet 233-8789}


-- 
Michael S. Balenger   ihnp4!link!msb   (201) 949-8789   {Cornet 233-8789}