skybytch

Really? From what I've read in the SIM, even D license holders are technically uncurrent after 6 months. After a couple years off, a review of emergency procedures and a low pressure two way with an AFFI is a good way to get back in the air (and coincidentally, also what USPA recommends). I just did a refresher with someone with 5000 jumps and 5 years out of the sport - while she had no problem remembering how to fall, fly and pull, she was amazed at how much stuff she'd forgotten when it came to emergency procedures (not the physical actions - those are like riding a bike - but obstacle avoidance, aircraft emergencies, etc). For that matter, a current friend sat through the refresher and he was surprised at how much HE'D forgotten too. A well done refresher is definitely worth an hour or so of your time, even if you are already an expert.

Ahhhh sadistics. What a fun class. I feel your pain.

Umm.... really hate to live up to my screen name, but as the original The Rack (tm), the decision as to whether there even will be a v. 3.0, much less who that person might be, should be made be me. Besides that, the ceremony for passing on the title requires the presence of both previous titleholders, and neither previous titleholder will be available to attend. You're all free to come up with a new title and crown whoever you want with that name if you'd like. But I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the title The Rack (tm) to those who originated it. Thanks.

What can be required of a candidate to prove that they are mature enough to hold a rating that is not subjective?

The only "recommendation" that appears on the rating proficiency cards is from the course director. All the course director is stating is that the candidate has met the rating requirements. Some S&TA's have no instructional ratings at all. There are no time in sport, ratings, jump numbers, etc, requirements to be appointed an S&TA. Heck, I was an S&TA when I had 500 jumps! It is very possible for an S&TA to control whether a particular tool with a rating works at a particular dropzone or not; just depends on their relationship with the person making the ultimate money decisions. Peer review and responsibility for the actions of those lower down the chain works in the military partly because it's a well known part of the job. I doubt many people would take the unpaid and often stressful post of S&TA on if they were "responsible" for the actions/mistakes of others that they recommended for a rating. Although I wish it were otherwise, I don't see a way for USPA to be involved in deciding if someone is mature or responsible enough to work with students. It's far too easy for that type of system to be abused (or for spurned candidates to challenge). It has to be a local (business) decision. Sure, some good people with ratings may not get work because the dzo doesn't like them personally, but there are other dz's that person can work at. There are no alternate rating programs that a good person can go to because personality conflicts caused them to be denied a USPA rating.

I don't think that it can be done within the USPA rating system. Since most dropzones are businesses, dropzone owners/managers can usually pick and choose who works for them and hire/fire at will, based on any reason or none at all. That's business. USPA is a non-profit organization supported by our dues. Not judging candidates on non-measurable benchmarks is not being "PC", it's covering the organization's ass. If a dzo wants good instructors, they should mentor those coaches that exhibit all the right habits, take good care of the instructors who exhibit all the right habits and refuse to give work to those who don't. Because someone has a rating doesn't mean they are entitled to work with students - only that during a certification course, a USPA rated I/E felt that they met or exceeded the ground and air skills required to work with students.

Oh I agree with you 100%, but the problem is - that's not measurable. Using anything other than measurable benchmarks to evaluate someone for a rating takes it into the political, if not the personal - whether we think that non-measurable benchmark is the right thing to do or not. Let's say you have 300 jumps now and want to go for a coach rating. Back when you had 100 jumps you did something really stupid; luckily no one was injured. Then when you had 150 jumps you again made an error in judgment, this time less stupid but still. Other than that you've been a fairly safe and heads up jumper. But there's that time you got in an argument with that one guy. He told the I/E about your errors in judgment, the stories well embellished of course. The I/E chooses not to rate you - a 100% qualified candidate - because of those stories. That's politics in skydiving. A maturity requirement won't work because it can't possibly be fair, and USPA is tasked with creating a fair rating system. Therefore, keeping those that we think aren't mature enough to work with students from doing so can't be the job of the I/E. That has to be a local decision.

Other than that, I agree with you. Marketing tandems as a thrill ride does nothing for student retention. Doing what you suggest will make it worse. At least now some tandem ride operators TRY to impart some actual instruction to their passengers, but too many others are more focused on giving the passenger (and, to the detriment of passenger safety, themselves) a good "ride." If the ride operators of the future aren't required to have learned at least a minimal amount of instructional techniques and aren't at least requested to actually teach something to their passengers... I think that would be a bad thing. But that's really an argument for another day and another thread.

What's a viable reason? I don't think that any examiner would have to give a rating to someone who has been found negligent in an incident, or is personally known to the examiner to be frequently drunk or high while skydiving. But in the absence of hard evidence or personal knowledge, there is no FAIR way to go about denying someone who meets all the pre-reqs and air and ground skill requirements a rating. Whether someone is mature enough to be a rating holder or not is completely subjective and therefore cannot be a part of the rating process. Not that many of us don't wish it could be at times...

True. Although the dz I learned at did have safety issues, we also slavishly followed the cloud clearance BSR's. The first time I punched a cloud was not there, but instead at a large, "safe" dz - six years after my first jump. So yeah, there really is no such thing as a "safe" or "unsafe" dz. Only safe and unsafe practices at individual dz's. If we want to be taken seriously as a recreational sport, and if (in the US) we want to remain self-policing, we really should all strive to follow the "industry standards" that the FAA and the skydiving community itself have developed over the years. And that's one of the points of the this thread. If I know that "something" is increasing the risk for me on every skydive I do there, it's up to me whether to keep jumping there or move on. But if I don't know enough yet to know that the risks may be a bit greater at one dz over another, then I'm not really able to make an informed decision on whether or not to accept those risks (ie skydive there). My hope is that perhaps some people will see themselves in my story and perhaps begin to understand the extra risks they are taking. It's up to them if they choose to take them or not - but they sure do look silly trying to defend those risks if they don't even know they exist. Although I think that ethically we all do have some responsibility to do so, it's not likely that I will ever be a "whistle blower" when I see what I think is a safety issue at a dz other than the one I mostly jump at (where I jump such things are usually handled quickly and well). I'll simply choose not to jump there, and depending on the issue I may or may not pass my first hand information/impressions along to my friends so they can perhaps make a more informed decision about whether they want to jump there or not. Now if I thought that being a whistle blower would actually create change...

It's a problem. Seriously. I know people who had THOUSANDS of jumps before they put a camera on their heads and despite their hopes to be able to "ignore it," they couldn't. A bit of unasked for advice for ya - when people with years of experience doing something that you are new to doing say that something you want to do isn't the best idea, it IS the best idea to listen to them. It's entirely possible that they know what they are talking about.

If a jumper has been to a few different dz's and knows that "industry standards" (which many consider the BSR's and FAR's to be) are not being followed at one, then yes, silence is consent. I don't know if that can apply to someone who has only jumped at one dz; without having seen how things are done elsewhere, they may not even know what the industry standards are. Pointing these things out has long been considered very bad form in skydiving. Partly because we're outlaws who don't need no stinking rules, partly because we don't want to be the one that brings the lawyers down. And partly because we want to be able to keep jumping with our friends - this isn't possible if those friends won't jump with us or if there isn't a dz nearby to jump at. It's also not possible if they're all dead, but in many jumper's minds that's far less likely to happen. Until it does.

? AFAIK there is no requirement for a tandem ride operator candidate to have an instructor rating prior to taking the course. At least in the US. I'd love to see a time in sport requirement for AFF I candidates that matches the requirement for ride operators. I'd also love to see the same requirement that used to exist back in the JM days - you had to be a JM for a year before you could become an I. That year usually provided some "seasoning" and served as an apprenticeship of sorts for the potential instructor. Requiring I candidates (regardless of training method) to have held a coach rating for at least one year prior to going for an instructor rating would hopefully do the same thing. Not sure I would support a time in sport requirement for new coaches, though. New jumpers who are excited about the possibility of giving back to the sport by working with others are gold. They should be encouraged, not discouraged.

I learned to jump at a Cessna dz. Like most all new jumpers, I trusted the people I was jumping with and the aircraft we were jumping from. "Our" dz was like a family. We were all very loyal to the place and the people. It didn't seem bad or scary that the Cessna got hand propped on occasion. "Nobody" wore seat belts before the Perris Otter crash so it wasn't strange that they were tucked under the pad. And the "cool" people jumped without helmets, altimeters or shoes. A year or so after my first jump, a fellow jumper complained to USPA about what he saw as safety issues at that dz. He was instantly ostracized. Like most safety related issues that are reported to USPA, nothing came of it and nothing changed at the dz. Shortly thereafter, a jumper who had 500 jumps and 1 year in sport was "blessed" by the (not a rated tandem examiner) dzo as a Vector tandem master (the dzo "made" him get the S/L I first). Another 8 months passed with him working as an unrated TM and then he managed to get the rating (assume he lied about time in sport). Another year passed and then he and a friend rated on a different system decided to swap rigs. The friend did fine, the guy I'm talking about took his passenger in (he survived, she didn't). This incident happened away from the dz I'm talking about, but it illustrates the lack of safety culture this dz had. Three years after my first jump the DZO went to Florida and got rated as a Vector examiner (note that this was after the incident above). Two weeks later he went in with a tandem. There were multiple issues with the gear, but it came down to him not pulling handles. The dz had a new owner two weeks after that. You'd think that loyalty would fly out the window when obvious safety issues are exposed at your home dz. But no. Most of us were sure that the guy from RWS who investigated was just out to get Al and cover RWS' ass - which kinda made sense considering the money they lost in the lawsuit after the rig swap incident. It took a few more years in sport and jumping at a few more dz's for me to realize just how unsafe things were at that dz. We were lucky that Al and the tandem were the first fatalities at that dz. My point? It's good to be loyal to "your" dz and dzo, but don't let that loyalty blind you if /when safety issues are exposed there. Having defended the undefensible in the past, I can tell you that doing so just makes you look stupid.

Great idea! Hope it takes off. Might be helpful to include a section for job seekers to post resumes as well.

From what I've seen, people who start new dz's and make them work long term usually have the ability to do just about everything required to make a dz work before they open one. They also own their aircraft instead of leasing. Being able to do everything means having enough instructional ratings to jump with any student that might come through the door, a riggers ticket so you can maintain the gear, the necessary pilot ratings so you can fly the plane and maybe even an A&P rating so you can maintain the plane too. Not to mention the ability to make manifest run effectively (it's not just putting names on a list), do the books, juggle cash flow, deal with "interesting" personalities, etc, etc... Eventually you can "grow" a staff that can take some of the workload off of you, but you need to always be ready to pick up the slack - whatever it takes to keep the loads flying and the money coming in. Don't count on folks from your former home dz to come help you out or make your dz their new home. A few might come work for you and some may come by to fun jump on occasion, but most won't be coming out every weekend. Plan to grow your own skydivers; you're opening a dz in an area that lacks one, your biggest market is the non-jumpers who live there, not the jumpers who live elsewhere. Good luck!

Only takes a week or so to get a piece of paper that means you will never be in that situation. As long as you remember to bring your tools to the boogie, that is.

Stalk exes. Talk about exes. Gossip about other women. Gossip about men. Gossip about women who gave up men for women. Gossip about gay men who we wish were straight. Look up recipes to make awesome dinners for our man, if we have one. If not, then we look up recipes to make awesome dinners just in case we ever score and have a man over (after a few months of being manless, though, we usually get depressed and start looking for recipes for yummy desserts). Amongst other things...

Allowing (or being allowed) the warming of cold feet or hands by placing them on the other person's bare skin.

Some shots from the past couple months. First one is some folks packing in the hangar between night jumps. Second one is from the landing area on Halloween. Third is Jillie Bean and Jason after Jill's recurrency jump. Fourth is Grey doing pilot stuff. Last one is just prior to a Sharks game.

1 - 1200 2 - 0

Winner winner chicken dinner!!

Nope. 1998-ish. Service Bulletin was in 2000. Easy way to tell if a Raven is a DashM or not - look at the s/n. All DashM's are 8 digits and start with a 5.

Non-issue. I'm sure there is at least one manufacturer out there who can get a rig to him before winter hits down there. He can either have a rig before it gets cold there or he can have a Vector 3. His choice. Why wouldn't he want to jump the same rig? Can he not go down at least one main size - if not two - in the same rig? Is it required that someone downsize both main and reserve? Is it not a good idea to load a reserve within TSO specs? Will the TSO specs change because he has 200 jumps?

1) It's a good idea to eat breakfast prior to drinking all day. Holy shit am I fucked up. And it's not even 1 pm.