Ron

And I did word mine correctly... It is comments like yours above which make it a dick measuring contest. You have ZERO knowledge about the topic yet expect to be taken as the lord almighty when you speak your opinion? Really? How about his one? "swinging their inflated sky god ego around here for as long as I can remember" Yet you have tried to claim that packing is harder.... Seeing that you have no relevant experience in one of the two.... Your opinion is not backed by data other than second hand. So, if I said: "Packing a tandem is simple, even though I have never done it myself, hell I have seen children do it" You would be 100% correct to call me out on that. Um...Yeah, ya did. I'll even show you where. "all I could think about was the fact that some dropzones still charge a "fat tax". Disgusting. If you are too big to jump, you are too big. If you are not too big to jump you should be treated just like everyone else, even if it takes a little more effort to do so. I can't get over the greediness of that..." This thread had NOTHING to do with the "fat tax" till you went off on your rant. You insulted anyone that does not agree with your views as "greedy" and that they "disgust" you. So yes by the very definition, you started the dick swinging. Hell, you STARTED it with the above quote. This thread had NOTHING to do with the fat tax till you spewed your rant all over it. No, we have said you have no idea what it takes to do a tandem and no idea how much more it takes to do a heavy tandem.... and that is true. Quit trying to make yourself an innocent victim. One big difference between us..... I have not tried to call you names. I have not tried to belittle your work , claiming to know more than you. I have not said you have bad morals (Well, in sarcasm to make a point). I doubt you will let it go. You have not let a lack of knowledge about a topic stop you yet. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Well it gets thicker doesn't it? Yes, but like you said, it would not apply in this case since the PPC was powered. But it does show that the FAR's are pretty tangled. Yes, the original tandem program was for instruction only. There was supposed to be a list of things you had to comply with, I do not recall all of them anymore. They did have things like providing an altimeter, discussing freefall position, canopy flight ect. Most of that was covered by a briefing.... I was told it is also why back in the day most students ended up with a logbook. Many schools simply ignored it, others did things like put an alti on every student harness. It was changed 8(?) years ago. For the record, I don't really see a problem with giving "joy rides" or letting people jump out of or off of anything as long as they do not pose a danger to anyone else.... But again, I am not the FAA. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Comments like that is why it becomes a dick measuring contest. You admit you have no idea how hard it is, yet you insult anyone that dares not agree with you. And if I admitted that it might be harder to pack a tandem than a sport rig, but that you were morally wrong for charging more for a tandem just because you are robbing money from the tandem passengers and penalizing them for not being able to jump by themselves.... How much credibility would you give me? Your morals are bankrupt.... You charge more for a tandem packjob knowing that it is the only way most people will ever get to jump... It is simple highway robbery. You should only charge what you would charge a solo jumper to pack the parachute.... Degree of difficulty and time it takes does not matter, all that matters is your selfish desire to make more money at the expense of tandem students who are not able to jump by themselves. This sound foolish? Well, it is the SAME type of logic you are trying to use on TI's that do not agree with you. Like it or not... More work should get more pay. It is more work to pack a tandem, you should get paid more. It is more work to jump with a big guy and the TI should get paid for that as well. Also, bigger people DO put more wear on gear and the owners of that gear should be compensated for it. I know the DZ in question. I asked them why they charge more and the answers they gave me were: 1. They are more work for the TI 2. They put more wear on the gear 3. They have a higher risk of injury. In fact they had data that showed that almost every tandem that was hurt out there was over a certain weight (I don't recall that weight). And due to that, they stopped taking people over that weight. Incidents dropped after that choice. Now, you may bash them for being insensitive for not taking big people.... But that is their RIGHT as a business owner. But to make this all fair.... You start only charging normal solo rates for packing tandems and I will not take the fatty tax. In fact, you pick the time period and during that entire time we will BOTH send the difference to the charity of YOUR choice... Deal? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Sell it to the FAA, I am not buying. BTW, I have had to deal with the FAA for work AND because they tried to bust me for a violation.... Your claim is going to fall flat fast. Did the 'student' have a logbook? Did the 'student' have more than this one flight? What was the lesson plan for this flight? How long was the "instruction" portion of the flight? So you are going to try and claim that this 'student' took an 'instructional' flight with the intent of not landing in the harness? Then you are going to have to try and claim that it was not in violation of the exemption. BOTH owners of the exemptions are not going to have your back. Like I said, I understand what you are trying to do.... But your chances of success are zero to none at pulling it off. Letting the guy jump is in clear violation of the exemption. The exemption is for instruction and letting the guy jump is not "instruction". I hope they don't fry the guy, and I personally think that we should be allowed to pull stunts like this.... But I am not the FAA, and the FAA has no sense of humor especially when there is a fatality on non-tso'd, non-105 compliant gear. BTW, mentioning this was a foot launch would have helped immensely at the beginning. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Interesting... Were they foot launched? I'll admit I didn't know of this exemption. Even then, they would still be in violation of the exemption. USPPA #9751A: "This exemption applies only to flights for the purpose of giving instruction in foot-launched, two-place powered paragliders." ASC #9785A: "This exemption applies only to flights for the purpose of giving instruction in foot-launched, two-place powered and unpowered paragliders" So if this vehicle had wheels, they are in violation of 105. If this was a foot launch, then they are in violation of 105 and 103. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

It came into it because you refuse to admit you do not have the relevant experience related to this subject. How many jumps do you have as a TI? How many jumps do you have as a TI with 200#+ students? If the answer to both is ZERO, then you have no experience that is relevant. The same goes with you claiming that 15 TI jumps is easier than packing 40 rigs. Since you have ZERO TI jumps, you just do not have the basis to make that call. It most often becomes that when a person has strong opinions but no relevant data to back them up but still thinks they should be considered the final word anyway. You have the right to that opinion, but you need to admit that you don't have the first clue how much more difficult a 225 pounder is than a 100 pound student. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

OK, it should of read: There is no safer way for a student to make a jump than tandem... There is no more dangerous way for an instructor to make an *instructional* jump. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

If it has two seats and gear, it is not under part 103. Again, pretty simple: Single seat = Part 103 Dual seat = Part 61 and 91. You keep mentioning a waiver..... And if you are talking about Exemption No. 6080.... Your argument falls flat however because.... 1. The sport pilot rule changed that. The date was Jan. 31, 2008. 2. If you were trying to claim 6080 was still allowed... You are still screwed: ETA: There is a waiver for foot launched tandems (2 actually)...I didn't know of this, but it does not apply in this case anyway. USPPA #9751A: "This exemption applies only to flights for the purpose of giving instruction in foot-launched, two-place powered paragliders." ASC #9785A: "This exemption applies only to flights for the purpose of giving instruction in foot-launched, two-place powered and unpowered paragliders" So, if you are trying to claim the exemption.... This was not a flight for instruction and therefore was against the exemption, and therefore against 103. You are simply wrong. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Was it B, C, or D airspace? If so then the ATC will alert and divert aircraft for you and no NOTAM would need to be given. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Try this one: http://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/alc/libview_normal.aspx?id=7720 It is not an FAR, but it is from the FAA library. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Lee, look in "General" here. The FARs are being discussed. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

http://www.faasafety.gov/..._normal.aspx?id=7720 Under 'DropZone', 2nd paragraph, 2nd and 3rd sentence: That is from the FAA's website. And this is also true. Do you know they keep it vague on purpose? There have been court rulings on what is considered a congested airspace. Read Folk v Sturgell. http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/082155.U.pdf But several people have stated that a NOTAM is not required, and I can't find the word NOTAM in 105. The best I can do is show the FAA website that mentions a NOTAM. So, I could be wrong. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Good, but this just shows you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to how much work is involved with bigger people. Again, this just shows you have no idea what you are talking about. It is also clear that you have no interest in learning anything about it. Nonsense, they are simply folding material into a bag. Again, you have no idea of what you are saying. There is a max weight for a tandem system. If the PAX is heavier, then the TI has to be lighter. Having never benn a TI... You have no clue what you are talking about, Like you not doing tandems at all? Well: 1. The TI's do not make those rules. 2. You having never been a TI shows you have no idea how much work it is, or how much extra a bigger person is. You thinking you know it all about something you have never done is what is ludicrous. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Semantics... We HAVE to notify them, they might (and to the best of my knowledge always do) file a NOTAM. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

If you say so...... 105.25 *seems* to say otherwise. 105.15 It shows that a notification to the controlling agency has to be made not earlier than 24 hours before and no later than 1 hour before, or you can write them no more than 30 days but at least 15 days before operations are to begin. Now you may not call notifying the controlling agency as a notam..... But I do know that in the three years I was on a military demo team we had to file paperwork for each demo and that was referred to as a notam. Also, after you file the paperwork and as a pilot call for a briefing.... You are given the parachute operations information and the FAA guy briefing tells you about it. ETA: http://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/alc/libview_normal.aspx?id=7720 Under 'DropZone', 2nd paragraph, 2nd and 3rd sentence: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Incorrect. When you PLAN on jumping you have to meet FAR part 91 and 105. 91.307: (b) Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United States except in accordance with part 105 of this chapter. 105 states you need a two way radio and a notam. 105.43 states you need a main and a reserve. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.17&idno=14 There is no such thing as a two place "ultralight". Ultralight is SINGLE seat, less than 5 gallons gas, less than 254 pounds, top speed of 64MPH, max stall speed of 27.6 MPH. Part 103: (a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant Break any one of those and you now fall under part 91 and have to follow all of the FARS. In addition, a light sport plane normally has a set of operational limitations.... Most of these operational limitations do not allow parachute operations. There WAS an exemption that allowed two seat ultralights... That expired Jan 31, 2008. Now you need a light sport rating, or a pilots license to fly a two seat aircraft. So light sport planes need to follow all of part 91. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Then do not ever become a TI. I guess you get paid the same for packing a Tandem or a sport rig? Do you give a discount to the guy with a small velo? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

There is no safer way for a student to make a jump than tandem... There is no more dangerous way for an instructor to make a jump. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The advice about getting an AFF rating has been good. This is off topic, but interesting side bar material. The thing I find interesting, is that here in the US we are trying to find a way to prevent canopy deaths. One of the most popular suggestions is 'education and peer involvemnt'. I can easily see how some would think that these steps would be making advisors into 'overlords' that you could not ask a question since you would be ostracized. So the question... How can you have a strong peer influence without being seen as an 'overlord'? In addition, another recommendation to help stop the deaths has been rules from the governing body.... Last I checked, the BPA was often refered to as the 'ban parachuting association'. It seems either track is likely to piss people off and be seen as overbearing. So, which do you think works better? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Nonsense. Some people might think that, but IMO those people have their own issues and are more concerned with what others think of them than what they like. Simply put, if it is not dangerous and you like it - Do it and don't worry about what someone talks about behind your back. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

In theory, the three blade is going to give you more power at the start of your rollout and in climb. Depending on the HP of your engine, it may not make much difference since the added drag of the third blade might require you to fly at very low prop pitch settings. Of course, there are more factors than just number of blades to consider. Blade airfoil, tip shape, engine HP, blade size, and blade material all have to be considered. In the world of fixed pitch props: Two blade is for cruise Three blade is for climb and short field work. My plane is fixed pitch and low HP..... So a three blade prop was worthless unless I was on floats and then I still would have needed to have tapered tips due to the extra drag. But the debate two vs three is one of the old ones..... And the only real way to know is to try each. Since that is not economically feasible for most people.... Find a guy that has as close to an airplane as yours but has something you are interested in and ask. But if you have a 200 HP plane and he has a 280 HP plane... That is not really going to give you a good comparison. Just for general comment, I called the manufacturer of my plane and told him my mission and requirements and plan on just doing what he told me: Two blade, carbon fibre, tapper tipped. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The crossbraced canopy will be more efficient than a crossfire or Katana. Simply because it will not distort as much giving more lift, it has fewer lines reducing drag, and is normally a thinner profile wing again reducing drag. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You have to compare the activities in the same way.... If you use raw number of deaths.... Driving has WAY more deaths than skydiving. But then again we have a sample error since more people drive than skydive and you can't use that as a comparison. We could look at exposure time. The drive out to the DZ takes me 1:20. That would be like making ~10 jumps (1 min freefall and 5mins under canopy). Now you need to factor in what TYPE of driving and compare to the TYPE of skydive. Driving on a deserted road is much more safe than driving through Atlanta. A solo jump is more safe than a 400 way. You could also use number of participants and compare to the number of deaths.... This actually gives the best result since it takes into all the factors. The USPA has about 30K members and about 30 people die each year. So about 1 in 1,000 participants will die. If that was the same with driving.... 306,700 would have died in 2009. For 2009 33,808 people died in the traffic accidents in the US. The US population was 306,700,000... So 0.000110737% of the population died. * Yes, I know I am using total population vs people who skydive. Even people without a DL ride in cars. And I know I am not counting people who just did the one tandem since simply I don't have those numbers. When you use the same type of numbers.... Skydiving is WAY more dangerous than most other activities. It is a very common tactic/habit for new jumpers to try to make "Skydiving is safer than "X"" claims. Most times they are not correct from a statistics standpoint. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You seem to have several questions.... I'll answer each as best I can. 1. Anyone paid for a packing class during their training before? The answer personally for me is that I didn't pay for a packing class, but it is quite normal to charge for a packing class. I didn't pay for my class because I learned at a small DZ 19 years ago and it was a weather day. But most DZ's I have worked at charge for the class. 2. Which of the two DZ's? Well, you answered it with, "has kind of a bnad rep for accidents". If true, then I would avoid the place till you know if the rumors are true. I'd have to ask how did you get this information and how do you know that it is valid? 3. Ever hear of a training program that uses tunnel? Yes, I have taught many versions of AFF/tunnel both military contract and civilian. It works very well if done correctly. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

There has only been one person with a 'hot head' so far... You, I would call 'warm'. Legit or not, it is often acts like the one mentioned that create and fuel a negative situation. Sorry, but that is just a fact. You don't have to like it, but don't be so myopic that you ignore it. 1: I have no dislike of the operation... In fact, I'd venture to say I have known Cathy longer than you and most of the other posters on this thread. 2: I also have zero sour grapes.... I have lost nothing and would gain nothing personally from any action taken no matter what the outcome. Frankly, evicted or allowed to remain will have zero impact on my life. I have never been there, doubt I would ever go there, and have zero negative feelings to her or the DZ. So if you are trying to claim I have some personal stake in any of this.... Well, as they say in that area, "That dog will not hunt". 3: As I have already said, I support the airport access issue. You jumped the gun and made an incorrect connection that just because I disagreed with Spoons method, that I disagreed with the mission. I quote myself here: "For the record, I support the DZ being allowed to run. But you are not helping your cause with your aggressive posting style. " And you rant was what exactly? You may not LIKE what people have to say, but people have the right to say it. You may not AGREE with what people have to say, but that does not mean they are wrong. You are free to form and express an opinion, but that does not mean you totally understand the situation or the position of the person/people you complain about. Cause at least on this topic, your characterization of me is wrong. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334