obelixtim

I think he needs to get a life. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Nail. Head. Hit At least in 5 years time the homelless people will have shelter over their heads. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Sorry to hear about your problem in this department. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

If that isn't a blatant piece of troll bait, it shows that you really have no clue about tandem terminal. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Thinly disguised: "they gave me the order of the boot, because I knew better". My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Aside from the staggering arrogance of that statement, the quote he gave from USPA with input from UPT would be valid if posted by a 5 year old. A bit like the kid with 9 years of experience telling people with 20, 30 or 40 years of experience the same. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Its clear you don't understand the difference between rules and recommendations. Its lucky they don't have rules about over inflated egos. But I'll excuse that, because you are a newbie to the sport. I see with 24 votes cast you are leading the poll with a whopping 20% of the vote. I guess you'll claim victory "because all the cool dudes don't come on dorkzone.com". My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

I don't know why you are so focussed on "rules" about how things should be done, by UPT or anyone else about landings. If you knew anything about skydiving, you might realise that fixed "rules" set things in concrete, and provide a free stick for the litigators in society to beat people and operators with at the slightest hint of an infraction. Some things can be set in stone, like reserve repack cycles for instance, simple and clear, no room for misunderstanding. Other aspects (opening altitudes for example) are not fixed by a set rule, but rather a recommendation, which everyone with a brain accepts is a good thing due to the variables you get when opening a parachute. People accept there is a good reason for that "rule" and are generally sensible about it. For that reason there is a reluctance to emphasise fixed rules about many aspects of skydiving, rather there are accepted recommendations. This is quite deliberate. But it is expected that skydivers can display a certain amount of common sense when it comes to looking after their lives and the lives of others. Its evident common sense ain't that common, not something hotshots are known for. Your crying about there being no "rules" for landing a tandem canopy meaning you can do what you like for your own "fun" shows a complete disregard for what has evolved as good practice since tandems began, taking into account the first priority a TI has, looking after his rider. And justifying doing hookies "because everyone does it" when clearly they don't, just shows someone who has the sheep mentality and doesn't have the maturity to make a sensible judgement. All the advice about landing a tandem canopy comes from lessons learnt from tandem day one, as well as general advice about canopy flight and control that applies to all jumps, and is promulgated by the likes of Brian Germain. There was nothing illegal about the turn, and no one is saying so. What "all those people" out there are saying is that it flies in the face of good practice, and was nothing less than stupid. They are not "wrong" about that. If you want to do 180 or bigger hook turns, do it solo, feel free to drill yourself into the deck. But don't carry some poor fare paying person to their death because you are too cool to fuck up, or realise your responsibilities. The people who are advising caution have seen plenty like you. When you have 30 or 40 years of skydiving experience, come back and tell us what you've learned. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Thats what its all about to you, isn't it. Grow up!. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

They did not die due to a worn riser, and anyone who says that is indulging in very poor speculation, and are completely wrong. The damage to the riser occurred during the incident. The very "well known fact" is completely wrong. The riser suffered extensive burn damage, it was not "worn out". It was perfectly serviceable before the incident. Everyone jumped on the "worn out" riser theory because they were too lazy to consider how it got into the condition it was after the incident, and most spouting this nonsense never even saw the gear. One riser was sent to the States, but nothing else. And the reason the riser was sent to the States was because of the distortion to the 3 rings that occurred during a terminal opening, not because of the damage to the riser itself. Mike was a very careful jumper who would never have jumped gear that was u/s. There was damage to another component (the reserve lines) that matched the damage on the riser. The guy who wrote the report didn't even look at the reserve, in fact cleared it for service. When I inspected it later I grounded the reserve due to at least half the lines being crisp. There are some unanswered questions about that fatality, but the "worn riser" theory is totally wrong. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

LOL, you sure do have a been in your bonnet. I am quite sure that I am correct, though you may be able to correct me on it. Both the incidents I refer to were in Taupo, you must know about them. If you can say where any other tandem fatality has happened then I would appreciate it. There has been a statement from the NZPIA stating that this is the case also, so I m not the only one suggesting this is the case. You and all you the nay sayers out there calling bullshit need to substantiate your claims. I have explained myself quite clearly and if you are going to refute something you need to at least do the same. And I am quite sure you are not. The guy who drowned had nothing to do with tandems. As far as the tandem fatality that happened, I was part of the investigation team, and there was no conclusion as to the cause. Damage occurred to the gear, but to say gear failure was the cause is simply not true. NZPIA were not around in 1997, so to say that NZPIA "stated this was the case" is pure bullshit. The TM was a close friend of mine, so pull your head in. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Bullshit right there. Also bullshit. Your words just proved you know nothing about either of those situations. Please don't make things up. People might believe you. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

You were a CSO in NZ, tell me the wind limit for tandems at NZ DZ's. Surely you remember. Actually, my alz...alz.....alz..(damn, can't remember) has kicked in, I'm so old. But. Different DZ's would have an upper limit depending on their location. At my DZ, a smooth 20 knot westerly wind coming off the lake was OK. A 5 knot wind coming from the east kept everyone on the ground because of the turbulence it brought. But at 25+ knots only the irresponsible would take off, and I don't know a DZO at the time who would have condoned that. How about updating your profile so we can get an idea of your experience and time in the sport? My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

And incompetant staff? Houston, there could be a problem. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

I remember having to answer a question about a demo jump, where the demo jumper would be dressed up as a witch, with broom and hat, plus the demo jump was to be at night and close to water. Question was, what to prepare and how to handle this. A number of people started writing like a full page how-to. The correct answer was: Don't That's not a correct answer, it's a chickenshit answer. Every skydive, no matter how risk-mitigated the jump and the gear, is a high-risk activity, compared to not jumping at all. The very safest way to prepare and handle one is: Don't do it. Of course, that misses the point. The idea of that kind of exam question is, or should have been, to test the applicant on a combination of knowledge and judgment when asked to be an expert consultant on a higher-risk, specialized jump (regardless of whether the jump is for commercial, demonstration or strictly recreational purposes). Now, if Step #1 is "first, assess whether the jumpers possess the requisite skill set, (and if not, advise them to desist and/or prohibit the jump as needed)", that's fine; but if the answer to the first question is "Yes", then that's not the end of the analysis. A kick in the ass to the author of that question. Rant over. Its an answer for the lazy, or closed minded candidate, and if it was asked with that answer in mind, it doesn't say much for the examining qualities of the examiner. The Mr Bill question I posed was for exactly the reasons you point out. It was worth 15 marks. The "don't" answer would not have scored highly. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

So you are old school, it shows. Professionalism is the ability to conduct ones self consistently and safely. Doing a 180 is not unsafe if it is done correctly. Your point?. And a 180 done incorrectly?. Do you understand the terms "margin for error", "the unexpected" and "maximising your options"? My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

So that makes you bulletproof huh?. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

I'm a Kiwi but haven't lived in NZ for 13 years or so. Started (with a partner) and ran NZ's first commercial tandem DZ as CSO from 1987. Been around the block a few times. Didn't say that, and I would question whether a 180 is really necessary, or leaves an optimum margin for error. Professionalism. In all aspects. Not an unreasonable ask, I would think. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Some of yout posts seem to be a little confusing. However, you can rant all you like about it being UPT's fault, a DZO's fault, anything else, or a lack of rules or supervision.. You can tell us about being "forced" to jump shoddy gear. You can try to deflect "blame" onto other individuals or organisations till you are blue in the face. Whatever. What it boils down to is this: The TI is his own safety officer, responsible for not only his own arse, but the life of another person who is expecting the TI to take full care of them. The do's and dont's of tandem skydiving, and the professional responsibility a TI has are common knowledge. There is NO excuse for deviating from known safe practice. Any TI who is browbeaten into jumping substandard gear, or treats the jump as his opportunity to have some fun because he is bored, allows his ego to override sound judgement, and has a casual attitude to safety has no business holding or retaining a rating. Why should he rely on UPT, USPA or any other body to wave a big stick before he complies with good practice? As a professional it is implicit on him to display sound judgement, make good conservative decisions, and display an awareness of what is going on around him on every single jump. There is no place for complacency. Anything less is unprofessional and bordering on wilful negligence. It is also unprofessional to witness unsafe practice, and condone such practices by remaining silent. He has a duty to the industry at large to speak out against cowboys. A TI is responsible for the life of his rider, no less than a brain or heart surgeon are responsible for the life of their patient. The level of professionalism needs to be equal. That message needs to be drilled into a few heads, and it would not hurt to see a few ratings pulled to emphasise the message. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

As I said, the TI carries a lot of responsibility for the incident(perhaps most of it). What I meant was that the airfield was so big he should have given the tandem a bit more space on landing. (Did he need to be right there?) Also while he was at altitude, if he knew tandems were in the vicinity perhaps he could have got a bit more vertical seperation. (Of course he might have done that and the tandem may have spiralled down as well, something we don't know about). If it was an AFF student on radio, then the radio man needs the kick. Lots of possible factors at play here. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

I know exactly what you mean, and it makes sense if talking about pilots who go, "Hey, wanna try some formation flying? I've never really done it!" But I'm not against pilots learning on the job. Few pilots hired by a DZ flying C-182's have prior formation flying experience, so the only realistic way to do formation flying is to do it flying skydivers. Under supervision in a graduated manner of course. It isn't as if the DZO is going to send pilots off on some formation flying course. At least that's all how it has been locally. I've been on 2,3, and 4 C-182 loads over the years, few of which likely would have happened if one were relying only on pilots with prior formation experience or certifications. I'll also note that the original post could apply to either a tight formation or a loose formation, which are different animals even though some basic skills are in common. I agree with pilots needing to learn to fly formations, but they should have some experience first, and if you are going to introduce someone to doing so, the other pilot should have a lot of experience and mentor the newbie. Formation flying especially with jumpers exiting different aircraft is not easy at all. A lot more complex than normal formation flying. Lots more is at stake. It sounds like these guys just wanted to try it out, which if it doesn't work properly is going to cost the jumpers, if only in time and unsuccessful formation skydives. Having two newbies flying close formation together is not really a good idea. As has been said about tandems, whats the point of it?. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

I remember having to answer a question about a demo jump, where the demo jumper would be dressed up as a witch, with broom and hat, plus the demo jump was to be at night and close to water. Question was, what to prepare and how to handle this. A number of people started writing like a full page how-to. The correct answer was: Don't In NZ, don't or can't are words that pose a challenge. They are not automatic answers. We don't take kindly to being told we can't try something. . Before getting to that stage we would ask if it is possible, and if so, how could it be done safely. In that way we have made quite a few "impossible" things happen, and safely to boot. I've been involved in quite a few unusual jumps, both as a planner, participant and the person able to veto the more stupid ideas people sometimes come up with. Rather than veto something out of hand, I'd rather examine the possibilities. You can learn a lot doing that. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Both jumpers at fault here I would say. The TI for executing a turn close to the ground which leaves him little or no margin for error in the case of anything unexpected. (turbulence for example). In this case other traffic. I'd give him a boot in the arse for that alone. His job is to take care of his rider, and this shows he is a little casual in that department. The solo guy for not staying away from the tandem. That looks a pretty large airfield, so he should be giving the tandem a bit more room. Whatever altitude he opened, he needed to get down and out of the way of the tandems. Was he conforming to an accepted landing pattern?. A kick in the arse for him as well, if not. Both need to up their awareness levels instead of painting themselves into a corner. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Most if not all jumping in China is exclusively military. I would say Peter is ex military if not still serving, and if so may be a little constrained in the responses he gives you. As in military jumping anywhere, they do things a little differently to civilians, and that applies to releasing information on accidents, perhaps even more so than in the west. I've jumped in China, at Anyang, which he mentions as a busy DZ. They've hosted a few International/world meets there. From equipment, to the way they do things, is different to our eyes. It works for them, but you should not be making judgements based on the way things are done in the west. One thing is for sure. Training and discipline is drilled in to them to a far higher standard than it is in the west. I would go so far to say that their accident/fatality rate is prolly lower than we experience at western DZs. Simpler systems, and focus on one type of jumping prolly mean less problems for them. But they are picking up new things all the time. Opportunities and jumps themselves are not easy to come by for them, especially if you are departing from the standard disciplines. But Peter certainly overloaded on new things to try, especially with his limited jump numbers, and as we know, this can lead to trouble in the sky. He needs to be a bit more careful, for his own sake. He will prolly learn a lot from DZ.com, so he is most welcome here. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

........................................................................................ Agreed The only time I have flown formations in Cessnas was when we were trying to build ten-way formations. The pilots need to have their act together. Used to do a lot of 10 ways out of Cessnas back in the day. With one inexperienced pilot in the chase plane one day he completely messed up the formation on exit, was slow to power off and lost sight of the base plane, and then allowed the chase plane to drift over the top of the base. In the excitement of the exit, the chasers left. The a/c formation went south very quickly. One just missed the prop, one just missed the left leading edge of the wing, one went between the wing and the tailplane, the other two went down the right side of the base plane, and the base pilot needed a new set of underpants. Pilots should not be practising their formation flying with a load of meatbombs on board. Tell them to do it in slow single seaters. We did get the 10 way speed star together but there were some shoook up jumpers in the circle. Edited to add: The inexperienced pilot was axed from flying formation loads, mainly becaused he'd ignored the briefing about this very scenario playing out. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....