MakeItHappen

It is not ok if this is continuing. Let me know the details. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

OK OK, I got the idea. OK, I can figure out what DZOs are OK with that. OK, but has she jumped at said OK dz recently to verify that said OK DZO is really putting out jumpers today, last week, last month? . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

The *this* refers to looking the person up in the FAA airmen's directory. What I do not follow is how you know that xyz DZO, with only a PPL, is flying jumpers? So you looked up this person in the FAA Airmen's directory and it shows that he only has a PPL. But how do you know that he is flying jumpers? You've repeatedly said you do not jump at this DZ, so how do you know that this person is flying jumpers? Sorry, I don't follow you. It's not a crime to be a DZO with *only* a PPL or *student license* or no pilot's license at all. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Ok more ramblings from me.... I think what Pete said should be listened to very carefully by his US counterparts. I think what Bill said was only one way to interpret the implementation of a mandatory admin leave policy. Let me expand upon these and other ideas... In the US, the FAA does not regulate most of skydiving instructors. They do have a small part in TI ratings (more on that issue later). In the UK, the federal government, CAA, does oversee skydiving ops. On one hand you could look to what happens in the UK as a futuristic modeling of what could happen in the US if the FAA did regulate skydiving. OTOH, you could say that we don't want what the UK has now, so how could we prevent such a thing from happening? One answer to this question would be to self-regulate and self impose a mandatory leave that is executed by USPA. Then there will be the arguments about becoming the 'big brother' that you wish to avoid.... Well, it may be that USPA could do a better job at the 'big brother' task than the FAA, in the skydiving arena. If USPA HAD to take on some 'big brother' task in order to avoid the FAA taking it on, which way would you go? I think your answer depends upon how you see the long term vs short term solutions. The implementation aspect that Bill mentioned needs to be clarified. An implementation could be an on the spot suspension until some USPA representative investigates. Now in the case of a gopher hole killing a student, as in Bill's example, the local S&TA or RD, if present, could do an on the spot reinstatement of rating. No jumps lost, nothing different than what goes on today. The difference would be the pro-activeness of USPA. In a case of questionable culpability, the instructor would be suspended for the rest of the day, a week or whatever (up to some limit) until an S&TA, RD or BOD could assess the situation. There's no negative put on the instructor because the 'admin suspension' would be a SOP type thing. For tandems, there is an additional complication. This has been debated here, at USPA and at PIA levels. There is a disparity on how to interpret the FARs. TIs are not considered 'Airmen' by the FAA. Yet the FARs impose some rules upon them. This is a really long and big debate, but I will say that in 5 to 10 years, TIs will either be considered airmen or the TI parts of the FARs will be removed. If TIs become Airmen, then expect AFFI, S/LI and IAD/I to become airmen too. Then we are into the FAA saying what's what and possibly mandating admin leave. If you look at this issue as a BIG picture, it is not a black and white decision. You never know when the next Jane Melbourne will come along. (Do not buy this book - read someone's copy) . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Why is it that almost everyone in skydiving uses the "[insert jumps]-jump wonder" line? I'm sorry, I felt like venting before, then I didn't, and now after reading your reply, MakeItHappen, I feel like venting again. What do jump numbers have to do with someone's opinion on the matter? I could have the same exact opinion and not be a skydiver at all, just a packer. What then would you use to belittle me? If you were using the jump-wonder line to refer to my time in skydiving... It sucks about your friend, and I'm glad something good came out of it like that article that has probably saved many lives through-out the years. You are right, I'm sure I have benefited from the changes the article brought about. All I said is that the author generalizes that all packers "overlook the placement of lines in the pack tray." Under the "contributing factors" instead of putting "many jumpers use packers," she could've put "packjobs are rushed when they shouldn't be" and it would've come across much better. I'm not the type to get bothered by little things, but for someone reason this one just irks me. You can be irked about it all you want and there is nothing I can do about that. The only wonderment I have about you is your reading comprehension. Reread Ian's post too. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Just for the record I did have a slot on the 400-way. I turned it down. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

see SunPath SB and attached graphic. You won't see them on rigs nowadays. Only closeted rigs may have them. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I saw your other post in the other thread, but did not know how to comment on an 80-something jump jumper, 7 years down the road interpreting the article. That article came about because my friend, James Martin, had a main suspension line hang up on a loose grommet on the top flap of a brand new Reflex. After James went in, I contacted several manufacturers to ask them about this type of malfunction. Over the course of a month or so, I collected many comments, insights and first-hand accounts of similar non-fatal incidents. Then, much to everyone's surprise, another jumper went in with main suspension lines entangled on a tongue type closing loop on a Javelin. This happen about 2 months after James went in. One common thought expressed by all the mfgs was that they did not realize this malfunction was happening as frequently as it was. That's when I wrote the article. In the article I say: and You may carefully observe that packing is one of several contributing factors in these types of malfunctions. It also was not directed at you personally. At the time, there was a systemic problem with equipment, the tongue type closing loop, grommets that were not properly seated and packing procedures. There were also many more assembly line packing concessions. Several people packed one person's rig, not just one person doing the entire pack job. Today, you don't see that as often. The industry responded and issued SBs to require the removal of tongue type closing loops and several mfgs changed the way they seat grommets. Packing was improved too by the packers and individual jumpers. Everyone started paying attention to where the excess lines were in relation to the closing loop. I actually think you have benefited by these changes, but are too new to realize it. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I don't know why this lesson has to be taught over and over again for each new generation of jumpers. FF-FF collisions or FF-Canopy collisions happen because the high person ran into the low person. That means that the high person MUST look where they are going more often than where they have been. A driving analogy to this scheme of BR during track off is similar to checking all your mirrors before hitting the brakes. Do you know any drivers that do that? There might be some that check the rear view mirror while applying brakes if they have to slam the brakes on and have a bit of space in front of them to avoid being rear-ended. If you talk to survivors of collisions, the high person will invariably say that they were NOT looking where they were going and ran into someone. The strange logic that if you look more at where you have been means you are safer is poppycock. The time you spend doing that means less time looking where you are going. Next thing ya know, you are the high person crashing into the low person. In regards to the specific incident you refer to, it is my understanding that the low person was on his back until he turned face to earth to pull. According to the illogic of BR during track off, the low person should have seen the high person. That did not happen, even though the low person was on his back for an extended amount of time. However, if both people were looking where they were going, the high person could have seen the low person. I know from personal experience on many bigways, including more than 500 jumps of +100-ways, that the safer bet is to look where you are going, at nearest neighbors and avoid being over someone else. You do a wave-off and glance above as a precautionary measure. The primary collision avoidance is watching where you are going. A couple of years ago I saw a video of a freeflyer that back-tracked away from a formation (small one). As he turned face to earth he was on top of another person from the same load. They barely missed each other. Watch where you are going is the safer bet. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

More background info on this issue.... Several members asked the BOD to consider a mandatory admin leave type thing. Even another BOD member suggested nearly the identical thing during a different discussion. The S&T Comm discussed this for awhile and the opinions were split. So a sub-comm was tasked with looking into it deeper. I am on the sub-comm and that is what I am doing. I'm asking you for suggestions or comments on this idea. Will it work or not work, why or why not?? Sometimes people can say something that may illuminate a different solution. That's why I'm asking for comments. I'm not going to defend or shoot down the idea either. I won't even tell you how I view it. I am not sure of the motivations behind this request, but it seems that they (the requesters of this idea) were not satisfied with what a RD did or did not do when a student fatality happened in their region. There are ways to overturn a RD decision, but that path is fraught with politics that you would not believe. Even the FB is not always kept apprised of situations. By the time the next BOD mtg arrives, it's too late to do anything. Just in the past 12 months, two letters from members were not forwarded on to the comm or FB as requested until extreme pressure was put on the person not disseminating the information. Yes it is still true that an S&TA or RD can suspend a rating for a given time period. One thing that would change is that USPA would have to become pro-active, as opposed to the current passive state. USPA would have to actively look into a situation, instead of waiting for information to come to them. From the member's POV, I can see where they are coming from with the mandatory admin leave and how that *might* fix a problem. But maybe the problem is elsewhere and that is what needs to be fixed. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Mandatory Administrative Leave Recently, several people have suggested to USPA that a mandatory administrative leave be imposed upon rating holders that are involved with a student fatality. Before you get all excited about this, there are recognizable differences between say a student that has a heart attack and dies on a jump and one that goes in because the equipment or instruction was incorrect. The questions to answer include and are not limited to: - Did the actions or in-actions of an instructor contribute to the fatality? - What timeline would be needed to determine culpability or lack thereof? - Who should oversee the reinstatement of a rating? In the real world, there are several agencies that have this type of policy. Specifically, police officers are placed on admin leave or in admin positions when they fire their weapons. In the skydiving world there is no admin leave. You don't jump, you don't get paid. Is it plausible to place a skydiving coach/instructor on a mandatory administrative leave, with no negative repercussions, until an inquiry determines that they did everything right? Right now, our system, at least in the US, assumes the coach/instructor did everything right and the student was the most likely person to screw up. Is that a valid assumption? What are your thoughts on this? . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I STILL feel that way. Why? Who ultimately ends up paying? I do as a tax payer. I still happen to believe that we need to leave socialism to the CIS and European states. Americans should be responsible for themselves. Period. If they were America would be MUCH better off. This is really a weird conversation between the haves and have-nots. I think both sides do not fully understand the position of the other side. The 'haves' say "if you cannot afford insurance, you should not jump or cannot afford to jump." What I think this group is missing is that the people that do jump without insurance are the folks that do not need to 'afford' to jump. IOW, they do not pay for their jumps. The 'haves' look at their $200-400/weekend jump bill and say if you can afford that you can afford insurance. But the truth is that the folks that 'jump for income' do not have that $200-400/weekend bill. They have an income of $200-$400 per weekend. That measly income goes to pay for food, rent etc. Also the "haves" say that 'my tax dollars go to pay for those that cannot pay for their medical bills.' Well, as Dave pointed out, it's either your tax dollars or your premiums that go to pay for the other person's medical bills. Is there that much of a difference to you? If so, it should be along the lines that Dave also suggested that the person should still be billed for equivalent premiums. The 'have-nots' are not necessarily irresponsible. They may have the cash available from investments. Those that don't have the investments and no-insurance, know that they can and will pay as much as the can for medical bills, most anyway. But the remainder is subsidized. In their case, the subsidy comes from tax dollars. That really is not very different than the subsidy from others' premium payments. So I really do not understand why the 'haves' are so bent out of shape at the 'have-nots'. As I said in my first post to this thread, we'd all be better off if everyone had an equal footing in obtaining medical insurance, that was not attached to who you worked for or your employment status (indy vs ee). . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I can't believe all the flack Douva has taken from you folks. Do you folks live in a cave? Get real here, today, you get taken care of, even if you don't have insurance. If you do have insurance and you don't like what the HMO or whoever says you ought to do, you can claim to be a 'state-care' person (or some legal- mumbo-jumbo like that). IOW, you get right there in the ranks of the indigent. I actually have a friend that did this after a skydiving accident. He made good money and had good (well almost good) insurance. The insurance company wanted him to transfer to a facility that was not as experienced in ortho than the place he was at. IOW, you can live life without insurance, betting that you won't need it, and go on with life happy as a clam. If per chance, something happens and you need medical help, you'll get it and a discount payment plan - if you don't have insurance. If you do have insurance, you get the premium rates. As Ned Flanders says, insurance is a perverse form of gambling. You pay a lot of money and hope it does not pay off. Of course, it is better to have a safety net of real insurance or self-insurance (the sell-a-building plan mentioned earlier) . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

If you are an independant contractor the thing to do nowadays is go buy insurance on your own. Worker's Comp is only available to employees, not contractors because the employer pays into the system. Now what would be really nice, would be if employers were NOT allowed to provide a benefit of insurance or if they did that was a taxable income for the employee, as well as the value of any any claims for worker's comp. EEs don't pay taxes on the part of the premium that the Employer pays. Same premium, paid by an indy, will be taxed because it comes from the income pile of money. The insurance industry would change dramatically if everyone, no matter what type of employment (indy or ee) they had, had the same type of financial burden in obtaining insurance and getting paid by insurance companies. It would probably go back to people having to get physicals for insurance rate determination. Groups and premiums would be determined by your health and activities, not by who you worked for. When I was a regular ee, I was FORCED to pay for life insurance, even though I did not want it or need it. I wanted the 'benefit' amount stuck into my paycheck. "Nope, can't do that. You MUST have life insurance. That's part of the group plan." . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

If you pay me $1000.00 USD I'll run the calculations for you. I already have a program that can do it. see Collision Course . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Check with your city department. They may provide FREE low flow comodes. All you have to do is bring the old one back within a week or 2. Extra keys with someone else are nice, but you could also bury some in a place in your yard. My house was originally built in 1911 and I've done window screens, irrigation, plumbing, fencing, termite control, washer/dryer installation and a gazillion other little things. It's the gopher control that has me stumped still. Also make sure they fix all the things that were supposed to be done before you sign the papers. In my case in was the kitchen vent fan, new carpeting, new lineleom (sp), stops on the irrigation valves etc. If they have to do something after you move in and tear up your lawn to do it, make sure they put the lawn back the way it was. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Looks like the Brett we know article . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

not necessarily. Many people just dont see the need, use, or expense in the 'additional' licenses. I'm one, and i know of at least 3 jumpers with more than 2000 jumps with only an 'A' as well (with more in between) I can (and have) learn everything the 'additional' licenses require without taking any tests, or paying any more fees (and fee's seem like the driving organizational reason for additional licenses anyway) to be perfectly honest i'm firmly against such forms of 'oversight' once you are signed off do what you wish (within the DZO's tolerance ofc) but then i'm generally against ANY form of regulation in personal recreation. this i agree with, but i see it more as an effect of treating the DZ strictly as a 'business'. Due to Management or Policies with the larger DZ's, most people have no desire to hang out any longer than the planes are running, which means the social bonds outside of your level and discipline are not formed at all. The Business First approach has driven out the 'Family Feeling' Yes that's right and we agree. (that's why I used the word 'indicator') Just about everyone realizes that not everyone qualified for a particular license actually applies for that license. OTOH, you could surmise that a certain percentage of jumpers qualified at each license level applies for said license. If that population, qualified at said license level, decreases, then the number of licenses issued would also decrease. Today's USPA C license is about equal to the old D license, yet the issue rate of the new C license is still less than the old D license rate. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

As long as you see that one person in the pattern with you and avoid them, it's ok as long as the patterns are separate. But the day you don't see them.... well - go read the recent incidents that say 'there were only two people in the pattern' "Ah-there's no one in the pattern except me. Ok cool I can do a super-duper swoop. Swoop...swoop swoop - oh shit - there is someone in the pattern -Bamm!!!!!" - (in)famous last words The rest of what Bonnie & Bill say is something I don't wholly agree with either. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

This is certainly true when comparing pre-tandem days to post-tandem days. In the past several years, no one knows the numbers of tandems per year. Guestimates can be made, but we really don't know if the number of first-time tandems is steady, increasing or decreasing. According to the number of licenses issued by USPA, the number of people getting an A or B-license per year has been steady since the mid-1990s. (see attached graphs) Also the number of license numbers given out, under-estimates the actual number of people getting and A-license. If 'that' = 'less and less people are wanting to go through the AFF program' then No. There are 3 cases to consider: 1. # 1st tandems is increasing 2. # 1st tandems is staying the same 3. # 1st tandems is decreasing For Case 1. # 1st tandems is increasing Then the % retention until at least the a-license is decreasing. For Case 2. # 1st tandems is staying the same Then the % retention until at least the a-license is staying the same. For Case 3. # 1st tandems is decreasing Then the % retention until at least the a-license is increasing. Until you know the # of 1st tandems, you cannot figure out if the 'student-status' part of a jumper's career is where we are losing members. I do know that the rate of # of C & D licenses issued since the licence jump numbers changed has not recovered to the pre-license jump number change. (4th Q 2003). IOW, the # of people that get their C or D licenses each year has decreased, since the license requirements change. This is an indicator that more people are quitting between the B and C license levels. As to why people quit, we can list all the usual items, that have played a part in this sport for scores of years: - suddenly became aware of how dangerous it was - got injured - got married - had kids - got a new job - got deployed - ran out of money - body is getting too old - etc., etc. A new item to this list is the reason of - 'I don't want to get taken out by some incompetent under canopy' This reason has been increasing over the past decade. It's even been publicly stated by several jumpers, right here on dz.com. This reason is a reason given by long time jumpers as well as new jumpers. Another new item is - changing dz social environment This happens more at the larger dzs. In order to be one of the 'cool kids' you have to FF or swoop. The social environment sends a messages that if you are 20-something and don't FF or swoop then you are 'old school'. That's a bunch of bunk, but it does create social divisions among the 20-something group. I personally think that making the canopy pattern safer (by separating swoop and conventional patterns) and saying it's ok to be a flat flyer will go a long way to keep jumpers jumping. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

The last time I saw something like that was at a PIA symposium. Packin Cathy brought a canopy that had many lines break at the same place on an opening that was not too particularly hard. Bill Coe looked at it and said the slider friction burned the lines. Check the broken ends and see if some of the threads are melted. Some threads may be melted and others broken because they had to support more load. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Last time I was in contact with her was around 1998 or so. I could go dig into my records to find her contact info from then, but it's probably not any good anymore. You might try finding Annette or Brian and seeing if they have any more recent info. Just a thought, she might have quit when Janet went in. I *think* Annette still jumps at Jack's DZ. If you need last names or the old, old contact info email me at aerosoftware_AT_MakeItHappen.com . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I've always had the busty problem of handles being in sight. Years ago the pullout was thought to be 'black-death' because you could not see it. Well lo and behold 20- something years later even the throw out (BOC) is in a place you cannot see. In 5 malfunctions over 6000 jumps, (4 partials and 1 total) it never made a difference if I could see the handles. The difference I noticed was that when the chest strap was below the breast material, it hurt a lot more, not from squishing, but from scraping over on every jump. My most recent rigs have the chest strap across the breasts. A little squishing happens when you gear up, but no scraping on deployment. I will mention that a custom rig I bought was made with the chest strap high, so that it would not squish. But in real life it nearly killed me by choking me under canopy. The chest strap was positioned at my neck when open. That was not a very good feeling. The mfg remade the rig to what I asked for and it has been fine. Being able to see your cutaway and reserve handles is definitely a plus, but not a requirement. I cannot see ANY of my handles on the ground or in the air. I also do not wear gloves, no matter what the WX conditions, so that my feel can be better than sight. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

The rig probably belonged to Willie Lee at one time. Try contacting Tim Wagner at wazt2_AT_yahoo.com and get Chris Wagner's contact info. Chris was on the team with Willie and can help you out in identifying it. Or run down to Perris Valley or Elsinore to get a rigger to tell you what it is. Should be less than an hour away from you. Resale is probably not going to be much. You might see if Square1 can sell it for you. There are some other countries that still use gear that old, but in the US, it'll be hard to find a buyer. Logo type patches on the gear bag might be worth something in another 20 years. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Hi Brian, Jan Meyer here. My questions are: 1. Do you think people ought to be allowed to do HP landings with turns greater than 180 degrees in a conventional landing pattern, even when they say 'I cleared my airspace.'? 2. On big-way formations, people are required to do conventional patterns. If they do not abide by that, they are summarily dismissed from the load. This enforcement comes from the other jumpers and the organizers. That is one end of the canopy congestion spectrum. At the other end, is one canopy at a time, landing in sequence. We see this at swoop meets, classic and sport accuracy events. Obviously, when 2 or more canopies try to land at the same time in the same place, the collision risk goes up for everyone, regardless of what type of approach they use. Does it make sense to you to separate HP approaches from conventional patterns in time or space? 3. I know many jumpers that have quit jumping because they feared for their life while under canopy. Do you think that the reckless or uncontrolled approaches done by some jumpers have contributed to the decrease in the number of jumpers actively jumping? Thanks and See you in Reno. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker