winsor

*** Jan, I'm surprised that you'd appear to accept at face value, what you're "told" when there is plenty of evidence that what is being said isn't the complete story. Here's the situation. Stuart called and asked about the bad-mouthing that he was getting because some people erroneously jumped to the conclusion that he was part of the SR network. I told him that I could make a statement that he was not involved with SR. I make no endorsements of his business, either positive or negative. All I am saying is that he is NOT associated with SR. All of you can say whatever you want about his business. All I wanted to correct was that he was not associated with SkyRide. I do not have an opinion of his business, but I do know he is NOT associated with SkyRide. That's it - the whole shebang. . There may be no association between the two operations, but all too many of the criticisms that apply to Skyride appear to apply to Skydive4free.com just as well. It has a bad smell to it. Blue skies, Winsor

I call bullshit. The name of the site is "Skydive4Free.com," and there is nothing free about it. You pay a higher than retail price for the jump, give them $45 for the privilege of making an overpriced jump - at their convenience - and give them another $250 to send to a charity. If the DZ donated the jump and these people did the work in their spare time, just so that people would make a minimum $500 donation to a worthy cause, then you could say that the skydive was free. It is not even as though it is a deal where, if you made a $500 donation to a worthy cause, you would get even a 10% discount on the jump. The charity part of the deal is a red herring, and Skydive4Free is no more or less legitimate than Skyride. With Skyride you do get to make a skydive, arranged by people that have nothing to do with the actual skydiving process, at a dropzone located conveniently 20 minutes away from wherever you are - and a portion of the proceeds go to the Orphan Ferrari Fund. What's the big difference in integrity/honesty? Blue skies, Winsor

Of all the business models out there, I find charity parasites among the most offensive. I will not give a nickel to United Way. The compensation packages of senior executives with that organization are on a par with Fortune 500, and the advertising budget is more than the GDP of some countries. Salvation Army, OTOH, puts its money where its mouth is. If you put a nickel in the drum, it goes to save a drunken bum. The Commandant of the Salvation Army in the USA brings down something like $35,000 a year. I contribute to organizations that take care of stray and abandoned animals, and have zip for an advertising budget. I participate in bicycling fundraisers where all the help is volunteer, the rest areas are stocked by donations, and all the money goes to the people who need it. I reiterate that if someone wishes to make a skydive, arranging it is a no-brainer. If someone wants to make a contribution to a charity, that can be done with little or no fuss. Who needs you? Just because your business model is not quite as sleazy as Skyride does not make it acceptable. The droppings of horses may not be perceived as being as bad as those of dogs, but they all fall into the same category when you step in them. Blue skies, Winsor

This is a teeny bit too much like Skyride for my liking. What do you bring to the party? If I want to make a donation to a charity, I make a donation to the charity. If I want to participate in an activity, I find people who conduct the activity and strike a bargain with them. It is not very hard - so long as there are not posers trying to insinuate themselves into the deal. It is less fuss to make a donation and arrange to make a tandem without your help than it is with it. Cutting yourself for a piece of the action, while adding negative value, is quite in keeping with the Skyride business model. Don't worry, they can explain why they are not goniffs either. Blue skies, Winsor

It certainly kept things from getting boring. I must admit that jumping into Italy with an M-60 and a ruck was the first time I exited an aircraft without trepidation. After hours of hobbling around with all that junk attached or trying to find a comfortable position to sit with it on, the prospect of having the parachute support it all seemed blissful indeed. As an aside, it turned out that the Lieutenant who secured the ruck had run out of 80# tape and used 550# parachute cord instead. I luckily tried to break it manually - people who relied on the weight of the bag to break the tape after releasing the ruck wound up with the ruck suspended from their leg, and a broken leg upon landing. Ah, the good old days.... Blue skies, Winsor

Agreed. It's just a shifting of the existing problem to another groups airspace. Seriously folks, we (swoopers) don't want the crazy flyers any more than you do. IMO, it keeps going back to: 1) Education 2) Peer Pressure Blues, Ian Wrong, it keeps on getting back to separating totally incompatible flight regimes. If, for example, you want to do aerobatics, you must be in an area that is dedicated to the purpose at the time. If you want to fly in the pattern, you must fly the pattern. Period. Someone shooting an accuracy landing in a dedicated swoop area is in the wrong. Someone executing a "normal" approach and landing in a dedicated swoop area is in the wrong. Someone swooping through either the accuracy landing area or through traffic is in the wrong. A BSR that says that you must separate incompatible landing patterns by either space or time hurts nobody. Swooping into accuracy jumpers or canopies in the pattern is hazardous to your health. Changing the wording of the BSR proposals to clarify the purpose that nobody should fly in fear of a collision on short final is fine with me, but thinking that education and peer pressure alone will resolve the issue is naive. If you want to apply peer pressure to Danny Page, you won't have any more luck than you will in trying to educate him. A BSR is the least onerous means of mandating the separation between incompatible landing patterns. Adding education and peer pressure can make it work. Blue skies, Winsor

I call bullshit. A blanket rule that says that you can not drive at unlimited speeds in residential areas does not infringe on much of anyone's rights. Saying that each neighborhood should have their own way of keeping children from being run over and cars from crashing into living rooms is not what I would call an enlightened solution. Regardless of how a few DZs have made improvements, saying that it is not okay to fly like a maniac through traffic anywhere is probably a good thing. I knew Danny before you made your first jump. He was not "extremely safe;" he made an active decision to push his luck one time too many and got himself and an innocent killed. Just because he was a long-time friend of mine does not change the nature of his error. He did not make an honest mistake, he chose do do something that was dangerous as hell - and turned out to be quite fatal. If I do something stupid and get someone else killed in the process, I don't want people to focus on how bright I may have otherwise been, or to engage in denial regarding the stupidity of my actions. There are people I dislike intensely, but grudgingly accept their positive contributions. There are people of whom I am very fond, but do not support everything they may do. I miss Danny greatly, and there is a void created by his absence. Nevertheless, his demise was the direct result of his own unsafe actions and, had he acted safely and conscientiously, neither he nor Bob Hollar would have died. Blue skies, Winsor

Sandy Wambach was a big-way accident. Her death was directly attributable to execution of a big-way. Danny and Bob died by virtue of a swoop accident. Danny chose to swoop at a time when some of us might have suggested a more conservative approach. The whole point of the BSR is to ensure that swooping does not take place in traffic, as far as I can tell. The racing analogy is a good one. Nobody is suggesting that Jeff Gordon is not an extremely talented driver, or that he should go slower on the race track (okay, maybe his competitors might prefer it if he was to back off a tad...), but I can not think of anyone who would recommend that he should be able to go balls to the wall through residential neighborhoods or commuter traffic - regardless of his skill level. Shrill arguments to the effect that Real Race Drivers (tm) should not be subjected to restrictions (since the problem is obviously with wannabes) miss the point entirely. If responsible Real Race Drivers (tm) do not drive like maniacs in normal traffic, rules forbidding people driving like maniace in normal traffic do not affect them. Similarly, the hue and cry regarding a rule that says that in the pattern you must fly the pattern is nonsensical. What, you are saying that it is an infringement on your rights if you do not have the "freedom" to whoosh past slowpokes at your discretion? Or that Real Swoopers (tm) can avoid anything in their path by virtue of their superhuman skills? Neither concept is worthy of serious consideration. Formula One races take place on normal roads, and the Blue Angels routinely perform aerobatics through areas where aircraft are normally required to adhere to traffic pattern rules. In each case, by dedicating the roads or airspace to the intended purpose for a specific period of time, a completely different set of rules may prevail with relative safety. Similarly, the whole DZ can be dedicated to high-performance canopy flight ONLY on particular loads or for specified times. This achieves a separation in time, instead of space, at a locale that does not allow separate landing areas. If people would back off on the heated rhetoric, I imagine that swoopers of every description would prefer to be able to fly without fear of rear-ending someone sinking in a Para Foil, and people in the pattern would be relieved to be able to focus on a nice, safe landing instead of worrying about being blindsided by someone who didn't quite clear their airspace during setup. In the same sense that driving through a residential neighborhood at 103 mph is unacceptable, even if you are Micheal Schumacher in a Ferrari F1, it is unacceptable to fly at 87 mph through the pattern, even if you are Luigi Cani under a VX-39. My guess is that it is only people who think they are Michael Schumacher or Luigi Cani who think they should be able to go as fast as they want wherever they want. Blue skies, Winsor

http://www.skydivekingair.com/index.asp Good? Prepare to be spoiled at an unique operation. West Tennessee Skydiving is truly outstanding. As far as distance goes, Mike gives particularly good driving directions in the website (and elsewhere). The only wind tunnel in Tennessee with which I am familiar is the one in Pigeon Forge - assuming it is still in operation. Say hi for me. Blue skies, Winsor

http://www.vladiball.org/ Though I do not particularly like the guy who makes these, and consider it to be a half-baked design from an engineering standpoint, I have bought many products made by people with whom I would not personally associate, and the market is small enough that it does not really justify the cost of developing a mature product. Personally, I have stuck to "Sunkist dives," where one flies relative to a spherical navel orange over farm country (eccentric oranges track like a bastard). Blue skies, Winsor

In some circumstances it is downright dangerous. Opening at 4,500 will have you under canopy above breakoff altitude for other groups, and at multiple-aircraft venues this can be a real problem. In addition, if you have one jump ship and multiple disciplines, having someone open at an unusually high altitude without prior coordination can present an unacceptable hazard. On big-ways you may be instructed to open between 2,000 and 2,200, another ring between 2,200 and 2,400 and so forth. Opening early can get you axed, since there is little room for creativity when choreographing the movements of hundreds of jumpers at save-your-life time. Having two jumpers try to occupy the same place at the same time has had tragic results all too often. Unexpectedly operating at variance with established procedures is a good way for this to happen. Part of safety in this sport involves playing well with others, and getting everyone on the same page goes a long way toward getting everyone back on the ground in one piece. Blue skies, Winsor

What is happening to skydiving already happened to SCUBA, for better or for worse. In the 1960s, there were precious few of us who SCUBA dived. It was viewed as a wild & crazy thing to do by mainstream types, and the people in the sport were somewhat hard core. Most of us could swim like fish, and spent many a summer day snorkling when we did not have tanks on. Some time in the 1970s, dive shop owners came to the realization that they were not going to get on the Fortune 500 by catering to the likes of me. I'll stop in for a tank refill, a tube of Wet Suit Weld and the periodic hydrostatic test, but I have been set for equipment for quite a while. By getting Muffy and Biff off the ski slopes and tennis courts and into the water, dive operations were able to tap into a much greater flow of cash. You have color-coordinated BCs and wet suits, dive computers and sundry instrumentation, and training programs which transfer directly from the Platinum Card to the Diver's Certification card. Of course, with the change in clientele you had a change in attitude. No longer was the primary focus that of personal responsibility, where losing your knife when diving apart from from a buddy could well result in drowning ensnarled in monofilament. SCUBA was touted as safe, and people invested heavily in hardware designed to keep them out of trouble. The parallels between SCUBA and skydiving are not exact, but they are instructive. In both cases, using military surplus gear and training is really not an option (special warfare being a special case for both). The bottom line is that we can't turn the clock back, and you can't get the genie back in the bottle. We can bemoan the passing of the good old/bad old days as the case may be, or simply accept that we live in a different world and make the best of it. I find it as amusing to get a rise out of youngsters when using 71.2 steel tanks and (recently overhauled) regulators made before they were born as I do jumping paracommanders and balloon suits among skydivers who can count their years in the sport on one hand. I do have aluminum tanks and crossbraced class-5 canopies, but use whatever works. All I can say is to enjoy yourself, since this too shall pass, and we will be saying "hell, I remember back before 2010 when we used to..." all too soon. Blue skies, Winsor

Keep abortion safe and legal until the fetus can vote.

If someone wants to play Lawn Dart on their own time, I'm fine with that. If they want to take me or someone else with them in the process, I have a problem with that. Blue skies, Winsor

With all due respect to those who suggest that changing instructors is indicated when results are not forthcoming, this approach has its pitfalls. One flying student, described as having more money than ability, could not meet one instructor's criteria for solo flight and went to another instructor. Somehow getting cleared to solo, and later the signoff and a checkride, our new pilot dropped the bucks and got a spiffy Centurion. Experimenting with rapid power cuts from high power settings at altitude, the plane ate the turbocharger and he managed to arrive alive. Since that plane was broken, he got himself a Malibu. With an autopilot and all the navigational whistles and bells, he did fine until he chose to execute a maximum demonstrated crosswind landing (crosswind landings were never his strong suit). After cartwheeling the Malibu and surviving, he took up another hobby. A skydiving student with whom I am familiar was considered hopeless at one venue, and went to another. Considered "Ms. Bad Example" there, she went to yet another locale to train. The third location got her through AFF and sent her home. I was in the air at the same time as this individual once, and was stunned by the lack of control that was demonstrated. Canopy flight proved to be an equally elusive skill, and what should have been a normal landing resulted in dreadful injuries. In this case, the theoretical concept that anyone is teachable was outweighed by the practical reality. On the one hand, it is good that she did not die. On the other, it was unnecessary to have Blue Cross handle her departure from the sport. I know some people who got "the talk" and went on to become great skydivers anyway. I know of many, many more who either got the talk or should have, and went on to become crippled or dead. I feel better about the people who were craters looking for grid coordinates and are now happy doing other things than I do about those where everyone saw it coming and they stuck around until it did. James Webb said, in a rather different context, something to the effect that it is fine to train by touch-football rules, but it does not do much for you if you are going up against the Green Bay Packers. Skydiving is a hazardous activity at best, but it is orders of magnitude worse for some than for others. To ignore that reality is to engage in denial, and does nobody any good. Blue skies, Winsor

I am not a skydiving instructor; my instructing credentials are in Physics and Firearms. I have, however, been detailed to give someone "the talk" on more than one occasion. The commonality between firearms and skydiving is significant in that neither is particularly forgiving of gross lapses of procedure. In both there are fundamental principles which, if not grasped fully in advance, can result in immediate death or ghastly injury. I am strongly convinced that not everyone is cut out for this hobby. Maybe limiting someone to static line jumps on rounds with an AAD-equipped reserve would place low enough demands on them if their decision making skills are not up to sorting things out with a planet coming at them at 120 mph, but even there you have a limit. I know of one very motivated individual who is limited to an endless series of tandems because her decision-making skills are the pits. I watched her open a soda, which began to overflow, whereupon she continued to open it - amazed that it then poured all over the packing area. Retightening the cap the moment it began to fizz over appeared to be beyond her grasp. The reality of the sport is that it is dangerous as hell, and cuts nobody any slack as far as wrong or too-late decisions go. I have seen enough people die or get maimed that I have seen people come to grief whose downfall was no surprise to anyone. Life is by its very nature a stochastic process, and in this sport we rely on the odds to a very great extent. If you hope that someone will beat the odds and survive long enough to catch on just by sheer luck, you are doing them no favor by encouraging them to continue. "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. That is, however, the way to bet." Blue skies, Winsor

Cargo can't panic or move around (of its own accord). I was going to say that cargo can't talk and distract you, but that is not entirely true. I was once flying solo in a very full airplane, and heard some kind of discussion behind me. It turns out that two packaged Furbys I was bringing as presents were situated so they could see each other, and were thus happily conversing. In any event, the training is not all for the pilot. Since there are circumstances in which the aircraft must return with everyone aboard, it is often a good idea for the passengers (who had hoped to be jumnpers) to have a good idea of what is involved in landing a full jump plane. I once flew to a distant DZ with another jumper, only to have him climbing up the seat on short final. When I asked him how come the reaction, he said "I've taken off in an airplane over 600 times, but I never LANDED in one!" The two things jumpers need to do during an emergency landing is to sit down and shut up. Almost as bad as moving around and changing the center of gravity is having people who won't stop talking. It has been suggested by people familiar with the particulars of the incident that JFK, Jr. crashed as a result of having two high-intensity females on board, one or both of whom demanded his attention at a time when he had his hands full. It would not be the first time that people who hadn't said "boo" for a two-hour flight had an incessant list of questions that began about the time of handoff from approach to tower. Even though I have landed with the airplane, either singly or with a full load, on many occasions, I am still up for participating in a training exercise. Getting a jump out of the deal is a nice touch. Blue skies, Winsor

I would forget about planning to do a demo-type jump if you are not PRO rated and going into some kind of official shindig. Of course, skydivers don't like to fly, so wearing a parachute when doing so is only a matter of common sense. If, while along for an airplane ride, there is a loss of power and abrupt change of attitude, it would be easy to assume that it was some kind of mechanical failure that warranted getting out while there was still plenty of altitude. Also, in the event of mechanical failure, reducing the load on the airplane makes it just that much more likely that it will be able to glide somewhere that it is possible to make a safe landing. This is an obvious misunderstanding of the pilot wanting to show you the park by your parent's house, but it is better to err in favor of aviation safety, eh? Blue skies, Winsor

I don't know about the UK, but do know something about the physics involved. I know people at your weight that jump, but it is not a sport well suited to those of great mass in general, regardless of their state of physical fitness. The more out of shape you are, however, the worse it is. When things work just right, there is no penalty to weight. A smooth opening does not overstress anything and a nice landing has a tiptoe touchdown with no runout at its conclusion. When things get peculiar is when it gets dicey. The lines and line attachments on a 370 square foot canopy are typically the same in number and stress rating as on a 88 square foot canopy, and they are, for spatial and temporal reasons, more subject to uneven loading. Similarly, if I put on another 100 pounds, my bones, joints, ligaments and the like are no stronger than they are now. Thus, with another 100 pounds on my frame, the normal loading on my ankles hips, knees and back is that much more, as is the normal loading on my harness, risers, suspension lines and line attachments. Thus, an event that increases the load on my body or equipment by 50% over normal - a hard opening or hard landing - might be unpleasant at my weight, but catastrophic with another 100 pounds. As it stands, I have seen people weighing a lot less than me get up saying "ow!" after a botched landing where I am convinced that I would have had at least an ambulance ride to an emergency room, followed by a stay in an orthopedic ward, had I experienced such a landing. If you can figure out how to lose the gut and get down to 15 stone, you would be in a much better position to skydive without getting hurt - regardless of regulations. Blue skies, Winsor

I agree that separating standard landing people from nonstandard landing people is an important first step. I also agree that people screwing around under Mantas have no business mixing it up with people executing HPLs. In the motorcycle world you have people who, if I ride up on my Harley (shovelhead), will go into a discourse on how their crotch rockets set them apart, and that people of my generation have no idea whatsoever. Of course, when I pull up on my Suzuki (GSXR 1100) they skip the diatribe. Similarly, I get one lecture from people when I'm jumping a Raven IV, but don't hear about it as much when I'm jumping an EXTreme 99 FX. In any event, my contention is that, while hot landings under tiny canopies are exhilerating, swooping is by nature a not a primary consideration. By that I mean that the #1 goal to have everyone land uninjured, having a great time is a close second, and doing the aforementioned in a "hey, y'all, watch this!" fashion comes in third at best. To have separate areas strictly devoted to standard patterns, HPLs and erratic low performance stuff involves a lot of work to organize, and I don't blame a DZO who doesn't bother to do so. Running a successful DZ tends to leave one with a pretty full dance card to begin with. Regardless of what approach is taken, it is imperative that the jumpers involved are all on the same page before boarding the aircraft. If, while waiting to board, someone says to the group "I'm going to be swooping the pond, setting up for a right 270 over there and landing to the West - is everyone okay with that?," you don't have people surprised to find it out under canopy. I've seen it work at various DZs for years. I am not sure if I am crazy about seeking safety through regulation, since the mandated solution may be less effective than another approach that is summarily forbidden. Again, I prefer getting everyone on the same page before takeoff to counting on someone not killing me because doing so would be against the rules. I do applaud DZs that forbid the mix and match of landing styles, giving priority to those doing a standard approach. Whatever we do, making a safe standard approoach a viable option for any jumper that chooses it has to come first, and others should be free to push the limits elsewhere. Blue skies, Winsor

No, not at all. The Airborne uses a standard landing pattern that involves coming straight down, and it works pretty well. They do, of course, use rounds, but you did not get overly specific. With ram-airs straight-ins work, and there are other approaches that can be used without getting maimed or killed, but the basic aircraft traffic pattern is the gold standard because it works. Okay, I will dignify this with a response. A 270 into traffic is dangerous, and I do not care a whit who is doing it. Even if you had eyes in the back of your head, the likelihood that you would put together the four-dimensional analysis of collision parameters in real time and keep it safe is nil. If you can even formulate such a question in all seriousness, I strongly recommend a few years of intense study of the physics involved ("can you concieve...?" Jesus.) Again, I am floored by presumptions inherent in your statement. What special knowledge of the physics involved is possessed by people you deem to be "swoopers?" If you think a "swooper solution" would be an improvement, let's hear it. Be advised, however, that your implication that a blind approach can improve safety tends to discredit much you might have to add. By golly, you're right. We old farts are too hung up on old-school considerations. All the people we've watched get maimed and killed could have been spared by the input by Skilled Swoopers. Boy, you sure could tell us a thing or two about how it should be done. Yup, the place to dial in blind turns and commit to highway speeds is where the outs are the fewest, the population density is the highest and everbody is moving. What could be more obvious? I can't wait for your explantaion that shows why everyghing I know is wrong. You are, of course, going to upset the Medical Lobby. When Skilled Swoopers show us the way, the amount of work we send to the Orthopedic wards will dwindle to just about nothing. When the Skilled Swoopers hold a seminar on how to achieve perfect safety without resorting to old-fashioned traffic patterns, I want to be there, taking copious notes. The old ways are gone! A new era is here! Just tell us the true way and we will pay heed! Anytime you're ready, C.B.. Blue skies, Winsor

I assume you guys jumped at SAZ too... how about separate landing area for HP landings? or maybe low passes for everyone? No... Instead they ban serious swooping I am getting somewhat annoyed at the people who think that "swooping" is much of an issue one way or another. I insist that people quit bitching about how they are subject to discrimination for being swoopers. It is patent nonsense, and gets away from the key point at hand, which is that, if you fly in traffic, you must fly WITH traffic. Right up front: if you want to swoop, knock yourself out. However, if you want to fly so that you are putting people in the pattern at risk of death or serious injury, that is not okay. Pay attention here - it does not matter whether you are coming through the pattern at a significant Mach number after a blind setup or are sashaying your way back and forth across the windline, you cannot fly so as to endanger others. In aviation, you can get away with a lot of questionable procedures, but one transgression that is codified is that it is patently illegal to violate the traffic pattern. For example, if you fly a right hand pattern where a left is published, or vice-versa, you are subject to sanctions. The idea that people feel they have the right to fly their canopies with disregard to the most fundamental principles of aviation safety is mind boggling. Nobody says you can't swoop. Nobody says you can't do 360s. Nobody says you can't sashay. You just can't safely do any of these things in the pattern, and there is nothing personal in that. If you want to do these things, fine. You simply have to do them at some other place or time than people flying a standard pattern. How tough is that to comprehend? The best swoopers I know can also fly in close formation with other canopies without incident. Threading the needle through traffic to effect a swoop is not so much a demonstration of skill as it is bad judgment. The BSR is not about swooping, it's about traffic safety. Blue skies, Winsor

Pictures? I'm waiting for someone to send some to me. As soon as I get some I'll post them

Kallend, as someone who's always interested in proving statistics and trends, I find it interesting that you conveniently ignore the last few years showing over 50% of the fatalities were non-swoopers. Any particular reason for this? Ooh, I can answer this one! Let's see, I see like one swoop out of twenty landings overall. If the 5% of landings that qualify as "swoop" are related to 50% of the collision fatalities, swoopers have an 1,800% greater likelihood of being in a fatal collision on any given jump. 270s or greater have no place in the pattern. End of story. BSBD, Winsor

On any load that we're aboard, Orly King, Scotty Carbone or I will call for a gear check at about 10,000 feet. Each of us has a different briefing announcement, but the end result is the same. Most people do one of their own volition, but enough people have found misrouted chest straps, folded-under cutaway handles or inaccessible hackeys when so reminded that I think it a sound policy. A couple of times someone has found a misrouted chest strap after rolling their eyes and "humoring" me by checking, so I don't mind it so much when people think it uncool. If you're going to come to grief because of something that could easily have been caught before exit, it won't be on my watch. Blue skies, Winsor