Jimbo

'cuz I'm SEXY damnit!

Dude. How much money do you think you're going to make as a TM? How many jumps do you think you'll get in a month? Remember, there's quite a bit you don't hear about the life of a TM. Most are independent contractors, that means they pay their own taxes out of their tandem earnings. They pay their own health insurance. They pay their own retirement fund (You can't be a TM forever). If they own their own tandem rig that's at least a $10,000 investment. I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else should stay away from being a tandem master or a professional skydiver, but please, know what you're getting into before you commit everything to it. - Jim

You can always try psycho packing it. It makes getting that slippery beast in the bag a whole lot easier. Alternatively, you could pay a packer for the first 50 jumps or so - depends on how lazy you are. - Jim

Oh bullshit. 170 jumps and an A license just means that someone hasn't made it around to taking the tests yet. I know quite a few people with greater than 200 jumps and nothing higher than an A license, it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't make them worse skydivers, that's for sure. The belief that license numbers are an automatic indication of skill is a crock. Don't believe the hype! I'm amused that this thread is still around.

Actually, this post found on wreck.skydiving seems to confirm that the Excaliber was in fact an F111 canopy. Here's a snip from the discussion: It's interesting, this post is from a while back, March 1996, for whatever it's worth, the rest of the thread is fairly interesting too: complete thread here. - Jim

There's a guy who shows up occasionally at CK with an Excaliber, I'm pretty sure I've heard him mention that it's F111.

Sorry 'bout that - I was referring to new ZP mains. I forgot about F111. :)

Interesting that you mention this, I noticed the other day that there are far fewer 'squares' on the market now than one might expect. Icarus doesn't even make a square, PD has only the original Sabre - even the Navigator is eliptical now, precision still has the Monarch, but with the GZ project I think it won't be long before that goes away. I think it won't be long before the 'square' parachute is no more. - Jim

There is only one 'official' USPA Safety Day - this year that's March 9th. Best way to find out if your DZ is having a Safety Day this year is to call and ask. You jump at Richmond right? My guess is that they'll have one - if you've never been it's certainly worth attending, they'll most likely go over gear safety (checks and maintenance), airplane safety, malfunctions, basic canopy flight (rules of the DZ, landing patterns, etc...). It's worth your time, you should go. - Jim

Actually, you did. It starts after the 17th word in your previous posting. It's already been mentioned that doing your high performance manuvers up high is nice, but hardly makes you safer than anyone else. I'll go so far as to argue that by really working the canopy only up high you're a bit more dangerous than others, what are you going to do when you get into some below 1000 feet? I hope you know, because it doesn't sound like you do. There was another thread on here where someone, I think it was Bill Von (my apologies if it wasn't), explained that opening high to give yourself 'more time' to deal with potential shit isn't really a good idea. One of the biggest problems with doing this is that one day you'll open lower than usual, think you've got X amount of time, and the results will probably be ugly. Something to think about. Again, that sounds scary to me - you should have your shit together before you get on the plane, you should have your shit together before you leave the plane, you should have your shit together before you dump. If your canopy scares you so much that you have to get your shit together after you dump you might want to think about a new, perhaps larger and more docile canopy. It's already been mentioned that almost any 9 cell will give you what you're after, everything from an old fashioned Sabre to a Stiletto/Crossfire/Cobalt. Stay safe. - Jim

Are you a regular at CK? Do you realize that the trees and buildings surrounding the landing area make CK fairly dangerous as DZs go? Most people don't, but things can get hectic up there quickly, more so than at other DZs. As to who they are, they're the people who own the DZ, they're the people who jump there every day and know the winds well. They're the people looking after your safety. Well then, you should have tried harder to go up. It's not difficult, usually just go and manifest, when/if they ask about the license you hold, lie. Wing loading is no measure of canopy skills. This statement means nothing except that you load your canopy at greater than 1 to 1, so what. No, I think that they're saying you need a B license or a C license to jump when they put on a weather hold. It's the rules, the rules may not be perfect, but they're the rules anyhow. As to water training saving your ass, maybe it could have, there's a pool on the DZ and a pond at the golf course.

That depends on the lines (material) and what you want out of the canopy. I think that the Sabre and the Tri will probably need a new lineset at between 600 and 800 jumps.

Atair, and there's plenty of info about the Cobalt on this site. Just search through Gear and Rigging, Safety and Training, and Swooping and Canopy Control - you'll have enough reading to keep you busy for a while. - Jim

I think if you can find a Sabre in a size you're comfortable with for $250.00 to $500.00 then you should go for it. Have the canopy inspected by a rigger, or at least another experienced skydiver you trust. The ZP fabric should be just fine, you'll probably want to look into a new line set which I think cost between $200 and $250 - remember that when you're thinking of the final price. For what it's worth, a friend of mine just purchased a used Stiletto with over 1000 jumps and it flies just fine. - Jim

Sweet!

Hmm. You must be watching if you know that they're not all fake. Boobies.

Just a friendly reminder.

Always true to her heritage, that's our Kelly. Unfortunately I didn't make it out I got stuck at work until 11:30 AM on Saturday then went straight home for some much needed sleep. There's always next time. - Jim

Congratulations. Just wait until you have to PRO pack a brand new ZP main. That'll be a fun chance to invent new and exciting ways to string together 4 letter words. - Jim

Just curious, how does he or anyone else in his position know how many jumps you have? 300 is a pretty low number, I would imagine that almost anyone with around 100 jumps could bullshit his way through a quick interview. Am I wrong?

That's easy. The one with the great people, fast planes, and big landing area. That one.

I'm not exactly a champion swooper, but I hardly think you're wasting your time. Develop good habits on a canopy that won't kill you for looking at it funny, then, when you move down to a more responsive canopy you will have already developed the habits needed to fly it correctly.

Easily scripted by who? There's a number you didn't include in your cost estimate. Yeah. Lots of things _should_ be simple, but the reality is that they aren't. That's why I have the job that I do. It's not likely that any server is going to have: (A) IDE disk, (B) only one. For the sake of performance, and data availability almost any server is going to have multiple redundant disks (RAID), and that costs money. Remember that disk need to hold an OS too, so you can't have all of it for image storage. This technology is significantly more expensive than $400.00, and on top of that you need someone to set it up and maintain it. What about people who don't have CDROMs? What about people who only have 8 bit color, or small monitors? For these people digital images aren't going to cut it. And now they're paying more than they would have if they just developed the film themselves. Certainly there's alot more running around involved this way. Nothing beats just dropping off some film and picking it up later in the week. I think that big DZs are less likely to offer a solution such as this. A DZ offers photo images and video because people want them, if the DZ starts putting the images and video on a media that doesn't sit well with the customer they'll sell less and less of it. They've got a format that works well now, it makes the customer happy and provides the DZ with a pretty significant profit. I don't think they're going to fuck with that. - Jim

Actually going to your belly isn't really dangerous because you are going too fast, rather it's several things: * When you're on your belly in a group it's possible that you'll collide with the person above you. This is bad. * When you go on your belly while flying with a group you'll probably end up out of the sight of those you're flying with. In _any_ skydive it's important to know where everyone on your group is. I don't see anyone getting injured because they flipped from a [sit|stand|head down] to their belly. It's when this is done in groups that you're in for trouble.

It's nice to see that this thread got bumped back up onto the radar. That said.... Before we run around screaming and yelling I think it's important to know exactly what the GM program provides for the dropzones and how this affects the jumpers. By itself this means nothing. The insurance companies need to recover from the losses on Sept 11, we (skydivers) aren't the only group affected by this. Actually, they'll have to pass off all of the cost to individual members and GMs, the USPA AFAIK doesn't have any other source of income. Am I wrong? What is the deductable now? It's not matter really, I'll probably support raising the deductable, lower coverage in my mind, is not an option. It might also be nice to know what the insurance costs today and what the proposed increase by the insurance company is. Do you honestly believe that coverage will go away completely? That's one thing I think that the USPA knows they MUST provide, both to jumpers and to DZs. I think that the membership will not allow the third party coverage to be taken away from them. This is a good thing. The USPA _could_ just as easily claim that all privilages of USPA membership are waived when not jumping at GM dropzones. As a matter of fact, they could concievably save themselves some money with a rule like this. I hope that that's not the best illustration of the diametric opposition you're claiming exists. Why should non-member DZs be allowed to profit from a program developed with funds contributed by member DZs? This doesn't really surprise me. As for instructors at non member DZs having to drive an hour or two out of their way, that's no big deal either. It seems to me that there are a limited number of courses regardless of group member DZs anyhow. What's the problem? When the DZ agreed to become a group member they agreed to certain rules. They broke the rules and their membership has been revoked, they knew the punishment for breaking the rules and they got caught. It is proof that at least a part of the GM program works - the DZ knew the rules and broke the rules, the USPA did what they said they would and terminated that DZs membership. Or, it may have taken several jumpers out of serious risk. I understand why the USPA did what they did. A USPA jumpmaster isn't necessarily better or worse than an unrated jumpmaster, a USPA rated jumpmaster has proven a core set of skills though and his rating is proof of those skills. It's quite likely that the unrated jumpmasters didn't possess the skills necessary to safely jumpmaster students. The thing is that you and I don't know what the exact situation was because we weren't there - Your statement "USPA may very well have put new jumpers into serious risk." is just as valid as mine that says the USPA may have also removed a significant amount of risk for new students at that DZ. How was the USPA to know what was going on at that DZ? Most likely the DZ signed a contract agreeing to accept certain rules in exchange for the benefits provided by the GM program. When the USPA found out that the DZ might be in violation of that contract they began an investigation and after gathering evidence decided to terminate the membership of this particular DZ. I don't see where they gave them a blanket endorsement through one period. In an organization the size of the USPA is it really reasonable for them to micromanage the goings on at all of it's members? I don't think so - it's more reasonable, strictly from a management standpoint, for the USPA to assume that when a DZ signs a contract that it is being truthful and then to investigate when claims to the contrary come to light. What I've said here isn't an endorsement of the USPA or the GM program, rather it's simply comment on what you've said. I don't believe though that you made a strong case against the USPA.