skybytch

That'd be Mrs. Bytch to you.

It's happened. More than once. More common if you don't use the recommended brand of replacement battery. And it's not just batteries that can fail. Electronics can do funky shit for no apparent reason. I've had a Neptune refuse to work in the airplane when it worked fine before I boarded and it worked fine on the ground after the jump - was not a battery issue.

RTFM

I'd recommend a completely analog alti for your first one. You may decide to go with digital later on, but that's okay - it's never a bad thing to have a completely analog alti in your gear bag as a back up. Batteries die and electronics freak out for no apparent reason on occasion. I use a Neptune now but I won't ever sell my analog. You'll likely end up with an audible as well. Most of them also include a logbook function. I find that function handy even though I log my jumps on paper - it remembers exit altitude and freefall time much better than I can.

If he's on pain meds, he isn't supposed to be drinking beer. Some girlfriend you are

Listen to your dad.

Yup. I can quit anytime I want.

Relapses are to be expected when one is in recovery. Did hell freeze over when I wasn't looking?

I went home yesterday. Seventeen months is a long time to not have your knees in the breeze. Long enough that I couldn't hold back tears of joy when I landed (standing up, in the peas). It's good be human again.

IMHO, if you have ever deployed a parachute and landed it without assistance, you are a skydiver. If you don't jump anymore, you can still call yourself a skydiver, you're just not a current skydiver. As for tandems, I knew a woman who was paralyzed. She had her own tandem rig and a favorite tandem master to jump with. She logged hundreds of jumps, including some mid-sized RW dives. If she wasn't a skydiver, then none of us are.

I was supposed to get a 1966 Chevy Nova 4 door with a straight 6, but then Dad happened upon a 1976 Monte Carlo. I liked that idea better cuz it had a 350, shiny red paint and a loud stereo. Amazingly enough it was a full year after getting my license before I got the first speeding ticket.

You can be named in a lawsuit if you sold something to someone who sold it to someone else who then got hurt. Have seen it happen. You can plan to not sell things to unqualified people, but people lie. You can try to verify experience by contacting the dzo at the jumper's home dz, but be aware that many dzo's have no clue how many jumps a particular jumper has. Pay a lawyer to find out how to protect your assets before you have to pay one to get you off of a lawsuit (or even worse, to defend you). (the above culled from 7 years working at a large gear dealer and a year running my own gear store... )

Where's the like button?

Nope. All I have is anecdotal evidence. USPA has this information available if you really want it. I don't need it, because for me fatalities are only a small part of the issue. From what I've seen, injuries lead to far more former skydivers than fatalities do. Unfortunately we don't have good data on injuries beyond anecdotal evidence, and we aren't likely to ever have it. This may be a logically valid reason to continue to do nothing, but imho it is not a good reason. The other area that is important to me is keeping swoop specific canopies out of the hands of skydivers until after they have a significant number of jumps and time in sport and have received some training on how to fly those canopies in a reasonably safe manner. Not to keep them from killing or maiming themselves, but to keep them from killing, maiming or scaring others out of the sport. There is no data other than anecdotal evidence of how many people are choosing not to skydive because they are scared to be in the air with a 250 jump mad skiiz wonder under a Velo. I know a few. I'm sure you do too.

They can still sell whatever they'd like to whoever they'd like. There are still dz's in the US where BSR's are ignored. Skydiving is an international sport; most manufacturers are happy to sell to non-US based jumpers. And besides, they've had over ten years to step up and they haven't. PD will send a Velo demo to people with 200 jumps right now....

Exactly. I envision a proficiency card much like the new B card, but focused on high performance skills. I don't have the knowledge to suggest what items need to be covered and I'd hope the only input used for that would be from those who have both knowledge and experience in that area. It wasn't all that difficult to put together a basic skills course using the outline in the SIM. The new B license card is fairly clear on what skills need to be taught/practiced. That's all that is needed to put on a comprehensive basic skills course. Although a video camera or two and someone willing to spend the day on the ground teaching it are also required. One advantage to having canopy coach ratings would be at least some standardization of the training for high performance flight. Another would be that the S&TA wouldn't have to know a person and/or their background to appoint them; just like with an AFF rating, if you have the rating, you can teach the course.

For WL, the chart tops out at about 1.5. That makes a good point above which to require a high performance endorsement. For canopy type, minimum C license (200 jumps) with an endorsement for Crossfire/Katana class canopies up to 1.5; minimum D license (500 jumps) with an endorsement for crossbraced canopies and/or wingloadings exceeding 1.5.

1. Create a canopy coach program. Two ratings, basic and advanced. Basic coaches can teach the skills required for and sign off on the B license canopy card. Advanced coaches can teach swooping and the skills required to fly higher performance canopies at higher wingloadings and sign off on high performance endorsements. Two ratings are needed - being a swooper or flying a high performance canopy is not required to teach basic skills, but it is required to teach high performance canopy flight. High performance endorsements could be done as a course or one on one. Tap one of the factory teams to design a course. 2. Implement Brian Germain's chart as wingloading limits for all jumpers up to 500 jumps. Limit Crossfire/Katana class canopies to C license or higher with a high performance endorsement. Limit crossbraced and future swoop specific or very high performance canopies to D license with a high performance endorsement. Enforcing a BSR shouldn't be a huge burden on dzo's and S&TA's; it should make their lives easier. Brian's chart is easy to read and understand and would be easy to enforce, and it allows for a reasonable downsizing progression. It doesn't require S&TA's to spend (unpaid) time verifying performance standards. Instead, they could simply look at a jumper's license card to determine if they are considered to be qualified to jump a particular type of canopy, and their logbook to determine if the wingloading is within allowable limits. Make it waiverable so the truly gifted and dedicated noobs can progress faster. Not only will this keep 100 jump wonders from breaking themselves on higher wingloadings, it will also keep swoop specific canopies out of the hands of those who don't/won't get some form of standardized training.

I lack upper body strength and I jump a canopy loaded about 1.0. There are things I can do to reduce the front riser pressure to a point at which I can easily pull them down (holding them down is another story). Being weak isn't a good excuse for not learning to use all available control inputs.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Implement Brian Germain's chart as a BSR for jumpers up to 500 jumps. Require D license qualification and coaching/training targeted toward higher wingloadings and high performance landings for wingloadings above 1.5 and/or crossbraced canopies. Allow for waivers to everything except the training requirement for advanced canopies. This is more in line with USPA's education not regulation stance. It allows for the exceptional noobie to advance faster. And it will not only keep 200 jump wonders with mad skillz from flying canopies they don't have the experience to handle, it will keep 1000+ jump wonders who don't have the knowledge or skills needed to fly high wingloadings and swoop specific canopies somewhat safely from jumping them as well.

Issue with this is that it limits who can get a D license. Why is that important? Instructional ratings - I choose not to swoop or fly a high wingloading, and I know many very good instructors who also choose not to swoop or fly a high wingloading. None of us would have been able to get an AFF rating if we were subject to the above rule. While having intellectual knowledge of high performance flight is important for an AFF instructor, actually having done swoop landings is not. Record attempts - A D license is required to be on a world record attempt. Limiting D licenses to only those who have swooping training and experience would negatively affect many jumpers who have no desire to swoop but want to be on an RW world record. If your point is that a D license holder should be a "master" or "expert", then it should also be required that jumpers do a specific number of (or get specific advanced training on) RW, freefly, wingsuit, CRW and camera jumps before getting that license. If it's required that an "expert" have training in one discipline, it should be required that they have training in ALL disciplines.

I'm with you on not wanting to jump a high wingloading and I don't think that those who choose not to should have to get a restricted license, I would like to see crossbraced canopies and wingloadings exceeding 1.5-ish limited to D license qualified or higher jumpers who have completed some form of high performance canopy flight course. Requiring a D license and some training/coaching of anybody who wants to fly a high wingloading or swoop specific canopy would go far to eliminate the possibility of both the hundred jump wonder and the thousand jump wonder making radically stupid downsizes that endanger everyone in the air with them.

If it will keep someone with 250 jumps from flying a Velocity, it's making it safer for responsible canopy pilots. Doesn't really matter what any of us think anyway; a wingloading BSR isn't likely to happen. "Educate, not regulate"

Done. An enjoyable read that I'd recommend to a whuffo friend. A bit on the short side though, imho.

I think it's a great idea. Been teaching canopy control courses covering the same stuff at our dz for over three years and there has been a definite improvement in pattern and landing area chaos. Not to mention those jumpers who had landing issues prior but now land fine. Can't blame USPA for that. The requirements can be completed without taking a canopy control course - at some smaller dzs that could be for the cost of the jumps and some beer for the instructor. The cost of a canopy course is set by the dz or the instructors doing it - not USPA. The card is structured for five jumps. It can all be done in 4 hop and pops. Good question. I'd love to hear some valid reasons why there isn't a BSR that says you can't fly that wingloading until you have a D license. But really, at 25 jumps you should know that a Crossfire at 2.5 flies like shit....