Leaderboard

True... but don't suggest it too loud... Wing-walking was outlawed for this reason... it took 40+ years for our airshow (and a couple others) to convince the FAA that it could be done safely. Its still a very dangerous activity; I know of 3 that have died since it came back, though ironically not due to their own failure as a walker. And there are already too many people/communities that would like to see skydivers go away altogether... And this is the key item why the old "I can do what I want, and if I die then its only my problem" needs to go away. Remember - you're dealing with an industry trying to find balance - we took an emergency egress safety device and use it to intentionally play chicken with Mother Earth. We know swoops kill, but we have swoop competitions. We argue that driving a car is more dangerous, then we show pictures of us skydiving in a car. As a group, we are unable to send a consistent message (nor do I think we ever will...) Cheers my friends.

Slim King, and everyone else is a moran!

My family isn't wasting any money. We get 99% of our "gas" from the sun. You decided not to do that and now you are living with the consequences. What a cruel, heartless world. You should get the government to solve your problems for you!

Hayden didn't know the chute colour.. he said he never looked inside. The early report in the 302 had Cooper's chute container olive drab and cotton tan harness... 11/25 Cossey described Cooper's chute as sage green nylon container and harness.. 11/26 There were many chutes found over the years that were rejected because they didn't match Cossey's description.. no way to track them down now.. and yes the customized ripcord was for Cossey's personal chute not Hayden's.. Besides, a rigger would never pack two emergency rigs for a pilot/non-jumper and customize one of the ripcords making hard to pull..

Yes and I remember when gas prices were $1.70 under Clinton. We should really elect another Clinton so that we can have gas prices that low again.

(partially in response to BMAC615, but then expanding from there...) But, for the sake of this discussion, the USPA is not concerned with BASE and (as it is based in the US, therefore subject to FARs) a BASE rig (generally) is not part of the USPA consideration. No, not everyone is going to be happy. But this rule was implemented in face of facts being observed at the time that supersede emotion, TSOs, and theory. There were several incidents that were hard to pin down the cause. - AAD says it fired on time, jumper died under a partially open reserve. - Jumper reported he deployed on time, AAD says it fired due to meeting parameters, 2 out. - Industry sees many newer mains taking longer to open - Industry sees some newer/smaller mains loosing altitude MUCH faster than before when not deploying correctly... leading to low/no reserve pulls. Senior industry leaders (USPA and PIA), provided with these situations, using their best judgement concluded: - the best way to give more of a buffer at the bottom end to get reserves open suggest higher hard decks - in concert with that, many suggest raising the firing altitude for AADs by a few hundred feet* - with a higher firing altitude, higher hard deck, more time needed to deal with radical openings, longer main openings: raising the minimum altitudes is the logical next step. (Not that I'm in position to do so...) If I were asked to waive the 2,500' minimum, I would want to know: 1. Why? (low cloud cover, OK) 2. What main are you using (and maybe the loading)? (Good condition canopy/PC with a model reputation for reliable on-heading openings that don't take 800', OK) 3. Hard Deck for this jump and AAD firing altitude (w/ adjustment)? (i.e. does the math work, especially in light of the answers to #2, if so... OK) 4. Is this an old-school jumper, or one used to working in the basement. (and if they ARE old-school, are they still sharp?) Many objected at the time this change was made, as they were used to working low, but the trend of things needed to be recognized so it pushed through (likely also influenced by liability concerns by Mfgs in light of the above). For myself: 2500'min, 800ft normal opening loss on the Spectre, 1050'-A3 Cypres fire alt setting*, and when you consider that AirTek recommends having a 1000' "in the saddle"-to-firing-altitude buffer... I'm already pinching those numbers. *A3 adjustment chosen both to increase reserve opening buffer/reserve working time, and in consideration of the 300' hill nearby that we occasionally exit over. Obviously your numbers will vary... but have you LOOKED at your numbers or is your opinion more emotional based? Just my $.03, JW PS - I remember when entire loads would plan to open at 2'k. And you could almost feel the shockwaves from the ground as that old F111 opened... but these were jumpers who were thinking it was much nicer than the days of openings under C9's and 26' LoPos...

Does that mean you will accept the election results, or only the ones that you like?

FlyJack is correct. The airliner never went anywhere near Cle Elum. On the flight from Portland to Seattle, the airliner stayed on V-23 until it was assigned to the Lofall intersection holding pattern northwest of SEATAC while the money and parachutes were secured. On the flight from Seattle to Reno, the airliner departed to the south southwest on V-23 and stayed on V-23, or slightly west of V-23 in the Portland area, until it was in northern California. The airliner was never east of Seattle until it turned toward Reno in northern California. To repeat, the claim that the airliner flew anywhere near Cle Elum is nonsense.

i'm not sure i agree with this or not, but i don't have enough information on it to make a call. i wouldn't think that the last several fatalities have occurred at places where these things were lacking, but i don't know and don't want to make judgements. i don't think i've seen any questionable things proposed around a dropzone since the late '90s, different world back then. if uspa instituted an endorsement system it would fix it in a very short time. it could be proposed, take comments and suggestions, and implemented by the end of the year 2023. everyone would have a chance at their say, and anyone could be grandfathered in for any endorsement they needed. anyone wanting one from then on would have to pass the test from the local s&ta. in a very short time we would show any new jumpers that we are serious about safety and it would become the norm. maybe it wouldn't stop all the fatalities but i am willing to bet it would stop some. if it stops one it's worth it in my opinion.

I only wish they were that good Wendy P.

The best part is you don't see the irony of you posting YouTube videos as facts.

I would think so,, there is no other explanation. Tosaw also said in his book that Cooper removed the packing card. Books aren't always 100% accurate. It looks like during inspection of the chutes Cooper removed the card from the chute he used and put it in the chute left behind.. or possibly he left it behind and somebody in Reno put it in the chute pocket. I would assume he checked the packing cards, compared them and chose the newer one... then placed the card back in the chute he left behind. Fact is we have two back chute packing cards documented as being found on the plane.. both match the packing date for Hayden's two chutes. One card was returned to Hayden with the chute,, the other had to have been the back chute Cooper used. and the FBI never figured this out.

Go review USPAs guidelines for jump-planes. The Australian Parachute Federation and British Parachute Association have also published guidelines. Piper Cherokees and Archers have been jumped before, but it is not straight-forward. I learned to fly in a Cherokee 140. The biggest hassle with an Archer is that the sole cabin door is forward and on top of the wing. If you leave the door installed, you will need the pilot's help - on rudder pedals - when opening the door. Removing the door requires a review of the pilot operating handbook and maybe an STC. STCs are expensive and complicated and not worth it for a single jump. The second hassle is avoiding hitting the horizontal tail, which is low. Asking the pilot to lower flaps will help raise the tail. I would lay on the wing root and roll or slide off to minimize my height. In comparison, look at the numbers of jumpers who have hit the tails of King Airs when they exited while the airplane was still in climb configuration. Consider that the earlier - and larger - Cherokee Six has been used routinely as a jump-plane at a few DZs. I made a couple of jumps from a Cherokee Six leased by the Saint John Skydivers (New Brunswick, Canada). The key difference is the large cargo door, just aft of the port (left side) wing. Since Cherokee Six still has a low horizontal stabilizer, you must remember to stay low while exiting. Nothing fancy, no poised exits, just tumble out the door. Hint: if you plan to jump a Cherokee Six on a regular basis, install a temporary sub-floor level with the bottom edge of the cargo door. The only low-winged, single-engined Piper that I would seriously consider jumping is the PA-32 Lance with a T-tail. Mind you, T-tailed Lances were only built in 1978 and 1979 and the model was discontinued because too many Lance pilots complained about poor pitch authority. Combine that poor pitch authority with too many skydivers cramming towards the tail and you could have "too much fun" on jump-run.

I use gasoline; I just think that, like everything else, I should consider (and pay for) the disadvantages as well as be rewarded for the advantages it brings. Wendy P.

I read somewhere that McChord was contacted but due to the Thanksgiving Eve they couldn't get in touch with the right authority to obtain the chutes.. they reached out to Cossey at home and he suggested getting all of them from Issaquah.. Meanwhile they had secured the two backs from Hayden. So, Emrich only supplied the two fronts. still don't see Emrich accidentally grabbing a dummy chute..

Get some flaps to make opening the door a bit easier. Dont step on the flaps on the way out. Have fun! When you land go buy your pilot a bottle

That's what I'm thinking. "You know, MBS 'ol buddy, it's nothing personal but these damn supply chains are a booger and it being so hard to find employees we'll be lucky to be only a little bit behind especially as we need to fill Yemen's new orders first." Too bad Microsoft doesn't build fighter Jets or we could just causing them to lock up without the new emergency update.

You can, just as I can write a wiki article saying that Joe Biden is the second coming of Christ. And if it's a popular topic, it wil be edited again and again until there is some resemblance to facts. That's how wikis work. OAN is a joke, as are all the conspiracy-theory forums out there that purport to know the true mind of Q (or whoever it is now). I find it astounding that you are so easily convinced that everyone you disagree with is evil and venal, but then I've always found the concept that good behavior is only ensured by punishent to be astounding. Kind of like the paternity issues that Herschel Walker has, and the voting issues that a number of high-profile conservatives have had, maybe everyone is just convinced that all eyes are on them, and so they have to deflect. Wendy P.

It is just a straight line from Seattle to Reno... just a TV graphic.. It doesn't go anywhere near Cle Elum.. and neither does the other recent flightpath you posted with the same false claim,, PRO TIP,, if you post evidence and make a claim make sure it actually supports your argument..

Your offensive question is so lacking in basis it doesn't even deserve and answer, but fuck it - I actually wouldn't mind working through all my thoughts on this. The first objection is functionally irrelevant but a very important principle - after 6 months of Russian military occupation there can be no such thing as a fair election even if it was genuinely free. The Russian occupiers have spent 6 months torturing, killing, imprisoning, deporting and otherwise disappearing known pro-Ukrainian citizens. Many more have fled the region to get away from the Russian occupiers and/or the front line. It is simply not legitimate to remove everyone who opposes you then claim to be justified because most of the people who remain support you. Imagine the FBI came to your state and convicted every registered Republican voter on trumped up felony charges, making them ineligible to vote. Would the crushing Democrat victory in the next election be a free and fair result? Now, the reason why that whole line of thought is irrelevant is because it will simply never happen. First, what does 'under UN control' mean? The occupied regions are not under UN control, they are under Russian military control. If you send in UN election observors, people are still voting in a Russian organised ballot guarded by Russian soldiers so it wouldn't be a free vote. If you contract the UN to run the whole election (which isn't a thing they do) people are still voting in an area controlled by Russian soldiers, and could be questioned outside the polling booth about their voting by Russian soldiers at any time in any place so it wouldn't be a free vote. If you bring in enough UN peacekeeping troops to replace the Russian forces and literally have UN control over the entire regions... well Elon Musk will have us all living on fucking Mars before he convinces Putin to let that happen. Which brings us to the third point - whether or not I find it is offensive is also entirely irrelevant because Putin himself finds it offensive. Putin has held the 'vote' he wants to hold. A rigged, forced vote. The same type of vote (just with less of a smokescreen) that he 'wins' in Russia in order to stay in power. He is not the head of a democratic country, he is a dictator with absolute power inside his own realm and that is what he wants for Ukraine. Any thought of a fair vote for the occupied territories is an ignorant, delusional fantasy. So tldr, the reason I disagree with Musk's suggestion is because I do not live in a world that is governed by the Disney movie version of Geopolitics and I have no interest in spreading pro-Putin propaganda. Unlike you, I have no desire to simply parrot the statements of the global elite or march with the brainwashed legions in servitude to the rich and powerful. (That's actually really unfair to Disney, they're capable of much more nuance and insight than that. I just thought it was a good line.)

The problem is you want to be the one defining who Nazis are. Do you include the Russian Wagner Group soldiers as cavalierly as you include the entire Ukrainian army? Wendy P.

Once Putin rules the world (or at least Asia) then there will be less war there and Slim will be very happy.

Every year the human factor contributes to fatal and life altering incidents in skydiving. And the life altering incidents are usually more brutal than an outright fatality. Some people can't react correctly to the situations they encounter and rapidly wreck themselves. It doesn't matter how much training, or how safe the DZO tries to run things. I always review incidents, no matter how serious, with the jumper involved. It's pretty eye opening the responses. As long as the human factor is involved, we will never eliminate the accidents. We can only strive to get the information out there and mentor those that need it. I think we do a disservice to many newer jumpers by not explaining to them how dangerous this sport can actually be. This week my 54th friend went in at Deland. Now granted, I know a lot of skydivers around the world, but this shouldn't be hidden from the newbies. As far as the USPA and the BSRs, if every DZO took a hands on approach to safety and stopped some of the shenanigans their own staff and fun jumpers are pulling, we wouldn't need so many rules. It all starts at the DZO level. Good planes, good pilots, good staff, good riggers, good load organizers and overview of the fun jumpers and a well prepared DZ in case of an emergency all lead to a better success rate in skydiving. It doesn't eliminate the human factor, but it sure helps mitigate it.

it makes more sense now. the "everything possible" left out a very important part. the part about "without pissing a lot of folks off". it is not that hard to add an endorsement to a license, in fact i thought that was the way at least one other country did it. it may take a bit to come up with the qualifications and then to train and add more examiners, but it could just be as simple as tasking s&ta's with qualifying them. in fact, i know i could come up with the system in a weekend of screwing around, then put it up for folks to look at and discuss. if uspa were so inclined, they could have it done and in place by safety day. but i would hate for it to interfere with competitions, after all, this is possibly saving lives not business.

Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough. If people won't comply and the budget for enforcement is small, what good are rules? It would be far safer if the national speed limit were 55, 20 in towns. Would you comply with that? Wendy P.

Also easy and simple. The days of 2K were already pretty much over. Changing to 2.5 did not impact anyone. No one cared because we all had long since stopped opening that low. It merely formalized what had become standard practice. We did the same thing in Canada.

It's a rule, like the rules to games, or the rules for governments (i.e. consitutions and treaties). They're arbitrary sometimes, but they are the rule within that realm. Many people aren't good at chaos, and rules help to manage that. If you don't want to follow the rule, then either find someplace where that rule doesn't apply, or work with whoever makes and/or enforces the rule to change it. It got changed to up, maybe you can make it change back to down. But come equipped with data, not just "it's dumb." Given that canopies do, in fact, take longer to open than they used to (a 1000' opening was a malfunction when I started jumping), it's not unreasonable.

Why do you accept that as a reasonable limit? Most participants were willing to accept 2k as reasonable when it was 2k. Then it was raised because nine people died over a ten year period and now anything under 2.5k is unreasonable.

What’s so hard about it? I don't want to get too far into this argument, but I think the idea is that it is hard to deal with different human performance abilities, that affect landing a parachute, more than it does getting your reserve out in time. The argument isn't that it is any way hard to write some numbers down on paper. For minimum opening altitude, even if I'm a shit hot jumper, my reserve opening distance is like anyone else's, my main will snivel as much as anyone else's, and even if I'm skilled, my reflexes aren't going to be that much different than anyone else skilled. So it is easier to set a hard limit, with a few mods for jump numbers or license levels. (Though one can of course quibble about some situations, eg, "What about if I'm not doing 120 mph but am just doing a hop and pop, and I have a big F-111 canopy that doesn't snivel forever -- aren't slightly lower limits reasonable?") For landing parachutes at different wing loadings, there it is harder to decide what is appropriate and not just arbitrary, as it is more an issue of experience and skill. E.g, I and others with significant airplane piloting experience have successfully downsized faster than typical in skydiving -- because high approach speeds and a fine touch on the controls aren't something new to us. (Having waivers would of course allow more flexibility if there otherwise were hard limits on wing loading vs. jumps.)

Uncle Moe is incorrect. AFF has proven to be the best training method skydiving has ever had and on the whole produces the safest skydivers when taught properly.

Well, each year there’s a new crop of first graders who haven’t learned the previous lessons, and each year there’s a new crop of self-designated naturally skilled pilots who decide swooping is for them. I think that the fact that the smallest possible container isn’t as cool as it was 20 years ago contributes, along with the learning that’s passed on — it’s more likely to be better information now, simply because the body of knowledge is so much better Wendy P.

The problem there is the people who only think they're pilots of this ilk, and instead are more of the "how hard can it be?" school. Because they're naturals. The breed seems to be waning, but they're still around. Wendy P.

Why are people engaging with an obvious troll?

It looks like the producers of oil pay around a dollar a gallon. As one of the world’s largest oil producers we should be more in line with Russia and Saudi Arabia. I blame Biden.