MakeItHappen

Let me try again. It is a teacher's responsibility not to place a student in danger if they do not have the requisite skills, especially in skydiving or fire fighting. A teacher should not say you are not cut out for xyz, (skydiving or fire fighting or quantum mechanics.) Sometimes a specific teacher and a specific student just do not connect. Then you need to get a different teacher. It is wrong to say to a skydiving student that they can never become a skydiver. A teacher, who only knows the student for a short time, may not know what motivates the student or why a student is struggling. Kudos to those instructors that can figure it out. But to summarily dismiss a student and tell them they can never become a skydiver is rather presumptuous and most often incorrect. I've taught physics, math and skydiving professionally. These are all difficult subjects. The students that had problems generally were missing some fundamental knowledge or skill that the current lesson was based upon. It wasn't until you filled in the missing knowledge or skill that they could succeed. Teachers that say someone is not cut out for xyz because they do not understand that a student is missing some fundamental knowledge or skill are wrong. Rob, if you want to learn about quantum mechanics and how those laser cutters work, let me know. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Well, Rob, you just proved the point. No instructor of whatever topic should tell a student that they are not cut out for it (whatever topic). Maybe there is a disconnect between student and teacher and another teacher may do better. It's up to the student to determine if they have the desire and capability to learn whatever else they have to do for xyz discipline. You have no right to discount someone's aspirations because you suck as a teacher. Then don't do tandems with paras. You obviously have no idea of why someone physically challenged may want to do what the rest of us take for granted. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I think most of you are missing the point. It is not a teacher's place to tell someone they cannot do something. It is up to the individual to decide whether they can or cannot do something. It is a teacher's place to encourage students and let students know what it takes to do such-n-such. From the stories related here, it appears that some students were put into a jump without knowing what to do. A teacher should also say that a student does not have the skills to do such-n-such and needs more training. A teacher should be aware that fear may be the 'blocker' to a good performance, not the mechanical or intellectual requirements. Many times in skydiving, this is the root cause of students screwing up. Many instructors do not teach students coping skills or give them confidence in their ability. See also POE Stephanie Weimer Darby Lentz HEATHER SUE MERCER Katie Hnida . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

My instructors told me to quit skydiving. Good thing I did not listen to them. FMI see this and that The bio is not even up to date. It does not have my 4 world records and 3 terms on the USPA BOD on there. Generally, instructors know very little about a student. Heck, I had people tell me 'Well see how long it lasts' when I told them I was a physics major. Teachers telling students that they are not cut out to do such-n-such is a signature of a bad teacher. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Well it's obvious, Bill. You try to get a BSR on the books that creates BSR violators of the vast majority of other jumpers. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Because I knew Danny. Because I knew Roger. Because I know that they would have 'cleared their airspace', but they did not see someone entering into the same space that they were going to use in a matter of seconds. They 'thought' they were in the clear. They did not intentionally cause a collision. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

That really won't help when the issue is someone way above you making a high performance, descending approach. In a few of seconds, someone who was a couple of hundred feet above you in straight flight may become a collision threat. Also, that person may have been in the blind spot above you, impossible for you to see. No offense, but... wrong. If everyone is paying attention to traffic, the swooper would have known where traffic was and avoided it. It takes everyones participation. Not just you. No offense, but... wrong. Danny thought he was clear and ended up hitting someone. The guy in Eloy thought he was clear and the almost hit his GF. The guy in Cross Keys did not see someone. Roger did not see someone. etc, etc, etc.... The whole point of these debates is that you cannot always see everyone that may become a traffic problem at the bottom end of a swoop. Additional means need to be used to ensure separation: stacked exits, pre-planning at the loading area, do not swoop rules etc. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

The story I heard was that the orginal BSRs and R was reccomendation then, was to keep the FAA out of parachuting. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I *am* aware of that fact, thank you. I seem to recall something in the SIM about the Board of Directors being involved in a license revocation. Licenses to my knowledge, have never been suspended. What would that mean anyway? But that's beside the point. Membership and/or rating(s) are the privileges taken away. The procedural details are in the Governance Manual Section 1-6, available online. Some salient points are: S&TA's and RDs cannot suspend individual memberships. S&TA's can temporarily, pending formal disciplinary actions, suspend ratings for persons that do something dangerous while exercising the right of the rating. Regional Directors can temporarily, pending formal disciplinary actions, suspend ratings for persons that do something dangerous while exercising the right of the rating. Regional Directors can temporarily, pending formal disciplinary actions, suspend group memberships. The USPA Executive Committee can suspend membership or ratings in-between meetings. That action has to be approved by the full board at the next meeting. It is the full board that actually has the final authority to suspend membership and ratings. This is done after formal disciplinary actions have been followed, usually several months later. You said "Having it as a BSR puts teeth into the punishment. ... With the BSR, he could've put the blame on the big bad USPA. For that matter, USPA could have pulled his license and any certs until he straightened out. " USPA is not a collection of safety cops. Whether you like it or not or even agree, USPA does NOT have the force of law to force anything, including BSRs upon anyone. USPA and its individual and group members pledge to abide by the BSRs. When they don't, it is up to the locals to stand up and say that ain't right and do something about it. The only entities that have the legal right to demand a certain behavior are the DZO or an organizer, restricted to the jumps they organize. Yes, I did, several times. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote several times. More talking can go a long way. As I said already, that is one place that needs improvement by all jumpers. DZO/organizer enforcement of their local policies for each specific situation is where the rubber meets the road. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

You could write an article called 'How to Avoid Canopy Collisions' published in Skydiving NewsMagazine June 2007. The original article is at TakeBackTheSky.com The APF said it would be publishing it this summer too. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I think you do not understand how discipline in skydiving works. I get the feeling that you and others think that the 'USPA Cops' would suddenly appear and yank memberships on the spot to 'control' reckless behavior or suddenly educate all about proper procedures. It does not work that way. The process that every DZ and every jumper has right now is to exercise peer pressure to get the 'flagrant violators' to conform to acceptable practices. For example, say there is some big-way thing going on at a temporary DZ and some yahoo does 270 approaches in the middle of traffic. He gets away with it two times because either no one saw him or no one told the organizers or DZO that it happened. On his 3rd swoop in the middle of traffic, he hits someone and kills both himself and an innocent jumper. Who is to blame for that? Certainly the yahoo doing a maneuver that endangered others. Anyone that saw this and did nothing to prevent it from happening again tacitly condones the action. In this situation, the organizers have the authority and responsibility to cut someone off a load if someone endangers others. The DZO can ground someone on the spot. USPA, even armed with a big, bad BSR, could not do anything on the spot. Only the DZO or organizers could have instantly grounded the jumper or got him to change his behavior. The reason 'talking to' is not working today is because not enough jumpers are getting involved and doing the 'talking to'. Jumpers tend to think 'oh the DZO or S&TA will take care of it'. The problem is that the DZO or S&TA might not have seen the infraction or was not informed about it. All it takes to fix, is someone telling the DZO, S&TA or organizers that so-n-so did such-n-such and they 'need improvement' in their behavior and the DZO or organizers enforcing proper safety policies specific to the circumstance. The fallacy of thinking that some USPA mandated rule can eliminate reckless behavior is absurd. . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

At Collegiates, the 2-way freefly artistic event has been changed to 2-way vRW. At Nationals, there is still the 2-way freefly artistic event and 4-way vRW. I think maybe the confusion comes from the pronoun it in the phrase "it won't be at the US Nationals in Ottawa". 'It', I believe, was meant to refer to 2-way vRW. There is no 2-way vRW at Nationals. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

taken from the story on the front page. does anyone agree with this? i find it hard to fathom that they can simply say that most of us do this because of a genetic trait. i understand the power genes can have over us...but still, such a blanket statement based on one gene seems a bit far-fetched. we all skydive for various reasons whether it is the rush or something else. does anyone else agree? also, skydivers have less death anxiety than other people? personally im shit scared of dying and well, i cant think of any other group of people that worries about it more, feels it affects and on the whole does anything they can do to avoid this. it was an interesting article but does anyone else think its generalisations on skydivers...is a bit far fetched? or am i just spouting nonsense? The 'logic' of that article implies that banning AADs will reduce the canopy related deaths because adding in AADs to the picture shifted the fatalities from low/no pulls to canopy accidents. Gizmos interfer with Darwinism, survival of the fittest. AADs save the people that couldn't save themself. They go on to do other stupid shit in a different area. It's not a displaced risk assessment or choice. It's a displacement of where someone screws up, because a gizmo saves them in one area but not another. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I have since looked at a couple of web sites explaining the supply-demand theory. The curves denoted by D1 or D2 are constant demand lines. They are contour plots of demand. That means, in mathematical terms, that at any point on D1 or D2 the demand is the same. Likewise, for the supply lines. So your comment of "It will simply decrease along the original demand line", with 'It' refering to demand, makes no sense to me. If 'It' refers to supply, then prices would go up when the supply of riggers decreases. That will probably happen, but not right when the rule gets changed. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I think there is a difference between landing a full load with everything working right and landing a full load that is simulating or has a real emergency. The OP said these practice landings would be simulating emergencies. That means the pilot would probably pull power from an engine. That is additional risk. If the DZ or pilot paid the jumpers and had a 'test dummy' contract with them, that would be different. A free jump is not payment enough, especially when you subject yourself to additional risk. There are plenty of ways to get free jumps without additional risk. I've been on a lot of loads that have had an engine failure. The best jump plane for this to happen in is a DC3. Hell, Howie gave us two passes on one engine. The Visions guys always asked for a cut when the right engine was out. Of course, they didn't get it. On one loss of engine on takeoff at Coolidge, the DC3 turned and landed on the cross-bar of the 'A'. On another Beech load at Coolidge, we lost the right engine around 10K. The pilot said we could do our normal exit. I was a floater. It was really strange looking over the plane and seeing the prop stationary. (In hindsight, I think this was probably not the best thing to do.) The best thing any jumper can do for an engine out below 1000k is sit tight, in the crash position and STFU. Your life is in the hands of the pilot now. There are pilots that can fly an Otter, DC3 or Beech on one engine. I've even seen an Otter pilot takeoff with only one engine, empty load. There are pilots that can fly a Cessna with no engine. Make sure you fly with one of those pilots. They get their proficiency by training and tending to the number one job of flying the plane. It would be irresponsible and negligent if a Cessna pilot says 'Say folks, before going to altitude, I'm going to try my hand at a dead stick landing.' or if a twin engine pilot says 'Say folks, before going to altitude, I'm going to pull power on one engine, right after takeoff and try to make the runway.' . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

On a graph of supply and demand though, the price increases if there is a shift in the demand curve (increasing shift ). It decreases if there is a decreasing shift (see third attachment). If the demand only decreases along the original line, then the price will increase, and there will be more supply available and the graph will be out of equilibrium (see first attachment). A change to repack every 180 days will only make the demand decrease, not shift i think. The demand will decrease along the original line, so there will be more riggers (supply) available for work. Then for the graph to reach equilibrium with the new 180 day repack rule, the supply of riggers would have to have to shift back so that there would not be a surplus of riggers waiting for work. I think that is what i have learned from economics I know nothing about economic theory, but I do know how to read graphs. So are you two saying that since the supply of riggers will be the same (at first anyway) and the demand will be lower when we go to 180 day repack cycles that we shall be be going from point 1 to point 2 on the attached graph? IOW, LOWER repack costs? . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Exactly. Must be a NG. Whoever heard of a skydiver with a budget? So if I have to use my reserve at the 30 day mark, do you reimburse me for the 60 days your pack job was not longer in effect? So if I have to use my reserve at the 60 day mark, do you reimburse me for the 30 days your pack job was not longer in effect? I think we all know the answer to that one. Most jumpers will probably try to time their first of the year repack with the weather. Well, I'm thinking of creating a rigger's coop. Sort of like a gym with all the exercise equipment. You pay a monthly or annual fee to come and use the equipment when you want. One more comment that you did not list is from a DZO type ***I'm swamped with rigging alone. If the repack cycle gets extended, then I'll have more time to do other DZO type things and have less time spent on repacks. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I agree that the practice needs to be done. I do not agree that others should be used as 'ballast'. That would be stupid for several reasons. As Mark said, it's illegal in some jump planes. It would be a BIG liability if the practice emergency landing was screwed up. (Just think of what the outcome would have been in the Aerohio crash if there were passengers on board that practice emergency 'landing'. BTW, the Perris pilots learn/practice that type of emergency landing over at Hemet-Ryan because it has much longer runways.) One saftey day a few years back, a DZ feathered an engine in an otter and the pilot told the jumpers to exit. It was their idea of getting jumpers to 'practice' AC emergencies. There was a LOT of negative fall-out from that 'practice'. If there was a semi-regular practice of having jumpers act as ballast, when would they know it was 'for real' or a 'drill'? What if a 'drill' became a 'real' emergency? Chicken Little comes to mind. DZOS and pilots are responsible for their training, currency and aircraft maintenance. You don't see airliners practicing emergency egress after landing with their regular customers. BTW, that Michigan crash was supposedly a buzz-job gone wrong. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Anyone know of any US or Canadian CF teams or judges going to the World Cup in Croatia this summer? Thanks. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Was that an SOS system? It looked like the cutaway and reserve pull were pretty much simultaneaous. Wonder what grade he got on that jump? A, dropped to an A- because of the frontloop during deployment? That person was lucky. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Mike Perry announced May 6, 2007 that he is resigning his USPA BOD position to pursue his career. Perry resigned as Chair of the S&T Comm last month. Procedures pertaining to the filling a Board vacancy are available in the USPA Goverance Manual, at uspa.org. Any Eastern Region USPA member in good standing for the previous 12 months may be nominated by a current BOD member or the outgoing director. Potential candidates should contact the BOD to find someone to nominate them and also garner a sufficient number of votes to win the election. An election will take place at the next BOD meeting in SF where the vacancy becomes official business. Perry was also the USPA VP. That office will be filled by an election at the next BOD mtg. too. From the uspa site " The Board of Directors will entertain names for nomination and election during its July meeting in San Francisco. Refer to Governance Manual for qualifications and duties." . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I would not expect Bob Holler or anyone else to be so omnipotent to quash every self-righteous, arrogant skydiver by themself. It takes a village - so to speak. Bob knew Danny and how Danny could come across as an arrogant SOB on occasions. Bob was on at least two dives previously, on the day of the accident, where others have said Danny did HP approaches. Why didn't Bob ream Danny's ass then? Then again, there is the issue that this accident happened at a non-GM DZ. It's a DZ that is only in existence for one event per year. How would or could a USPA doctrine technically have any influence upon a DZ that does not pay money to pledge to abide by the USPA BSRs? The event organizer and many others who were at this event did say there were rules in place. Danny, apparently, violated those rules. Why he wasn't talked to or maybe he was and blew it off, I don't know. Stop throwing stones and look at what you can do to change the future. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I agree that USPA is not a police agency. I think you need to separate the 'old' BOD from the 'current' BOD actions. I may be on the USPA BOD now, but I am not accountable for what happen before I was on the BOD. It was definitely before 1988. I think it was 1976 or so. There was a Parachutist article on the name change, but I don't have it at my fingertips (or it would take hours to find). . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

FYI BSR = Basic Safety Requirements . What about this: c. Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each other. [NW] do you find objectionable? It doesn't dictate what the procedures should be, just that procedures should exist. If you read SIM Section 6-10.F you will see that this recommendation is already in place. This is a recent addition to the SIM. Perhaps, many jumpers are not aware of this. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

FYI BSR = Basic Safety Requirements . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker