Liemberg

Since the number one reason for femuring is turning too radical too close to the ground and it is common knowledge that smaller parachutes and higher wingloads deteriorate the outcome, a course can be very short IMO. "Don't turn too radical too close to the ground" Why don't we put that vital piece of information in a first jump course? In the latest dutch "sportparachutist" I did read two articles that by a strange quirk of fate ended up in that same issue of that magazine. The first article was from an experienced skydiver who said how much he learned during a canopy course given by one of the local experts in the field, despite his own experience of + 1450 jumps. The other article was a fatality report about a jumper who did not survive the landing of a perfectly good canopy. It is common knowledge among dutch skydivers that the person who died there is the same as the one who was giving the course that got so much praise in the other article. He had a website about the courses, you could book at certain dates, he was touring the DZ's etcetera. He impacted the ground with too much speed after turning too radical too close to the ground... "Don't turn too radical too close to the ground" (and yes, I'm in one of my more cynical moods...) BTW: I managed to land a ram-air canopy well over 2700 times without fracturing a single bone in my body. Should I start giving courses and charge people for the knowledge as described here above? "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Did read it and to get some perspective tried to read the thread from the beginning. (Now look what you've done, getting me so tired reading that I had to skip _oral sex and circumsized penis_ elswhere in the womens forum... ) Back on the 'your word versus mine' topic: I would imagine that showing up in a court and stating in a believable fashion that nothing happened is in order 'when push comes to shove'. IMHO that becomes a lot easier if indeed nothing happened...

Just wait 'till you'r a dirty old man like me...

If I were faced with that sort of hard choices like she apparently is, I would also be forced to look at 'the mathematics of the situation'. IMO they dictate that she'll be better off with an average of $0,002 from every non skydiver than with $ 2,00 from every skydiver.

She hasn't posted. But was logged on recently... (But 'knowing' you, you probably checked before you posted... ) Wasn't it John Irving who wrote something about always passing*) open windows and being in need of a friendly rugged and reliable bear... (can you "google" that?) *) or was it bypassing... thats what you get from being lazy and reading the dutch translation...

AFAIK everybody is supposed to take at least one tandem to terminal velocity, during one of his trainingjumps... Once it's at terminal distance to the ground would be the decisive factor. Though you can with a Strong, I wouldn't recommend that on most other systems... On the topic of 'tandem RW': it has been done. Which is not to say that it is a bright idea...

[rant mode on] That be the same 'community' that slandered and slaughtered her in this public forum (can you say 'trial'?) for 'talking to the press / taking advantage of the situation / jumping uninsured / dating an instructor'? She wants her teeth back. She wants her health back. She wants her looks back. "Well I go through life without teeth AND always, always, always take responsability for my own actions" "Good for you. I'd rather have teeth..." BTW you can safely assume that she was uninsured for she would lose all her rights with the public statements she made ("I and I alone am responsible for this accident"). Something to do with fine prints in the policy... Ever had an encounter with an insurance company from an INSURED skydiver after the mishap? Well, I had and can asure you that they practically gag their client in a situation like this for they will reserve their right to go after the DZ, the airplane owner, the rigger, the parachute manufacturer, the owner of the asphalt and whoever they think they can assign blame to and stand a chance to get money from. As a rule of thumb therefore statements like Shanya's are explicetly FORBIDDEN in the policy at the risk of them NOT paying the bill... As for 'courting the media' - she gets's travel expenses, so who is courting who? Let's not forget that instead of somebody dying there may be two people emerging alive from the accident scene. Human interestwise they (the press) would go after her - and they did. If that gets her on Oprah, dr Phill and extreme make-over and some people pick up (part of) the huge bill with things like a 'baby shower on National TV'? She ought to walk away from that with a debt of several years income and THEN we would all rush in to help her? I 'd jump at the opportunity in a hartbeat if I were her and wouldn't give a rats ass about the hurt feelings of the skydiving community... What ALL skydivers can LEARN from this accident even without the help of Shanya and Rick? Get insurance. Don't chop to soon. Get insurance. Then again, don't chop to late either... Get insurance. And if your reserve is spinning violently with the slider half way up you can panic or do something productive like pulling strings, see if you can get it to fly straight and if you are lucky enough to land it somewhere unobstructed and soft. (Hint: avoid parking lots / aim for wet grassland) I hope I don't panic in that situation but I'm not sure I wont because I have zero experience in that department since all my reserves opened flawlessly untill now. Then again, they number more than Shanya's total number of jumps so my chances are better than hers, I suppose... And all your poor selfrighteous souls that are called for an explanation at the water cooler and feel 'incovenient' or that blame her personally for the raised insurance premiums or that worry that there maybe less tandemstudents next year? Get a life! [rant mode off] BTW. Did I mention that it would be in everybodies own interest to get insurance when they are involved in skydiving?... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Mandatory basic coverage is in place in the Netherlands. We are in a transition though. (The law has changed overhere verry recently and it is not clear how it is going to work in practice...) But under a new law we get a discount if we don't use it, pay a substantial fiend if we become 'heavy users of health care' and can get extra coverage if we plan to use it a lot. Basically we can afford to have a skydiving induced 'extreme make-over'... And since we wouldn't be skydiving for a while during recovery... O well... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

I wonder how he sneaked that faqtor 135 and the safire 119 past me.... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

I don't know what kind of instruction she got, since I wasn't there when she got it. Were you? And the fact that I'm glad someone wants to jump again doesn't mean that I actually think it is a good idea if they do, just means that I'm glad they survived and look back at their skydiving adventures in an overall positive way. Saying blindly that she should get better instruction (and then 'all will be well'?) is saying here initial instruction was sub standard. Though this one has several of the signs of that being the case, it is not for me to judge in a public forum. And neither for you. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

If YOU do continue in the sport, I really hope you learn to be less judgemental about other peoples performances during 'iregularities / incidents / malfunctions'... Shanya is NOT the first person to chop a canopy where the only problem is a popped toggle. I have seen several people do this and personaly made that same mistake in 1982 but was fortunate enough to end up under a good reserve. She wasn't as fortunate as I was. From the moment the reserve malfunctioned "all bets were off" as the saying goes. Could someone with a lot more experience than she has handle that situation and produce a better result? Maybe, but your average "less than 100 jumps wonder" is also a "zero reserve rides wonder" and things have a tendency to go really really fast in the real world... And giving the sport or the DZ or the DZO or the rigger a black eye? Come on... The local DZO is probably hiring extra staff for next season because of this! The story that gets everybody so worked up is as much selective hearing from the journalists as what she is actually saying. "I'll jump again!" Way to go girl!

That can be easely solved: Give every tandempassenger a torough briefing with LOCAL aereal photo's and LOCAL aereal video AND some basic training in the principles of steering the canopy during some 2 to 3 hours before you take em up with a tandem. My bet is that the succesrate of finding the DZ rises dramatically. The guy with the paddles is usually in the middle of the large field... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

I have even seen it as: "puzzled look / hooks passenger to reserveripcord / another puzzled look / finger of videot points out the mistake (waving!) / TI corrects it / sigh of relieve, brushes sweat of forehead"... When I gave that scene a try myself last year several people told me I could give acting a shot, should I seek another career...

I'm "a late convert", switching to radio's only last season, after using paddles for + 15 years. Indeed - paddles are useless when somebody can't find the DZ for the life of it, that's why I decided to change. Other than that, they do the job just fine, IMHO... Radio's are great when the students listen - but they don't always do that... (Well, you can relate to that, I guess... ) I've found radio's actually easier than paddles (AGAIN, when they listen) since you don't have to be in the students line of sight. Then again, I distinctly remember an accident @ another dutch club where the student did exactly as told. Unfortunatly the club was at a summercamp and the radioinstructor (not familiar with the DZ's surroundings) steered the student into powerlines - which ended with a fatality... Also, if you want the students to grow up and become "tuff & independant" you do away with this sort of "crutches" as early as possible. "Unobstructed Lane" "Canopy straight above you / Wing level" "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

We all know that parachutes sometimes turn without steering input and we say that the canopy has 'a built-in turn'. It is a bummer if you have one such canopy, since it is notoriously hard to find out what causes this: line shrinkage, unevenly built cells, different batch of fabric - I have heard the wildest speculations and so have you (probably - at least when you have jumped a few years... "try placing the family jewels on the opposite side, hehehe...") However, someone reported back to me that he replaced an elder canopy in his rig with a new one. The old one was a CD190 (F111 fabric) the new one is a Zero Porosity square 150 (I'm not giving any brand names for now - if it were alone for the fact that I don't know the brand - suffice to say 'sabre2 lookalike'...) The new canopy had a distinct built-in turn, not only reported by the user, but also by a 'trusted third party' with enough jumps to know what he is talking about. When this 'trusted third' took the new canopy and jumped it in his own rig, it did not turn. On examination of the rig they found one discrepancy which is that the distance of the harness ring / canopy attachment point to the buckle in the leg straps when measured showed a difference of 'between a centimeter and half-a-centimeter...' Can this, in itself create a built in turn that comes to light when you replace the 'old, forgiving F111' with a higher loaded and smaller Zero P parachute? Anyone out there who has experienced something similar? next week - weather provided - the 'trusted third' might make a few jumps with the rig and build his own rocket-pocket in it. For now, I'll wait and see - but I like opinions, especially from people in the harness building industry. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

If you were to follow this FAA suggestion to the letter, maybe you shouldn't do that since it says: A jumper who uses any type of AAD should be aware of its level of reliability and become fully proficient with the device. The mere working of the device (which has been called 'myopic' by others) ought to influence your decisions. For that to happen, you have to be aware that it is there during the 'parachute opening stage' of the skydive. Example? In the "dark ages" (when the setup was AAD-less) I regularly took tandems down to 3500ft. Nowadays I don't do that anymore... Although I prefer two parachutes over zero parachutes anytime when I'm landing, I've found out that ONE good and functional parachute is on the top of my list.... AND - those of us who are into taking a highly loaded main in a steep dive through AAD land should also be fully aware what is on their back... Now that IS good advice...

Skygod says he'd like wannabee-skygod to pay since this parachuting is both addictive and expensive. Well, I can relate to that.... Somebody who's name I forgot but who I can picture in front of me like it was yesterday, helped me rise above myself in the summer of 1984 by making me part of a pick-up-fourway that made nine points which was three times my average at the time. Then he thanked me for the skydive... Beyond Cool IMHO...

True when you only look at her skydiving 'here and now', but false if we are to prevent similar cases. I would hesitate to "blame" instructor or student as a matter of principle, but if there's a lesson to be learned? (Instructor: "Please don't think with your dick when teaching skydiving" / cute female: "if you're gonna fuck up there's no use in polishing up your make-up ...") And of course I don't know if the situation as sketched here was even remotely the case... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Pretty bad, but my guess is that isn't the case we are confronted with most of the time... Anyone out there ever tried to explain the wonderful working of Windows (say 3.1 to XP) to 'the elderly'? (preferable one of your parents...

In freefall we're all deaf. With everybody wearing full face helmets nowadays - we might as well be deaf on exit too!

I think it was the late Roger Nelson who once said (in an interview with 'Skydiving Magazine' ) that jumping with your family as students really brings home the fact that all your students are family to someone and that therefore your 'operational procedures' should reflect that. (i.e. "don't want my kid to jump with this old rig / lousy instructor / incapable pilot / tricky weather conditions? Why then someone elses kid should be OK with that?") That said - I'm glad my kid is off student status, glad he chopped something (a bag-lock) & pulled his reserve, glad he landed out already twice, glad he went into a cloud and came out 'completely somewhere else' at 1500ft and most of all glad he seems very aware about risks and the dull discipline you have to follow in order to eliminate them. In fact he seems more 'religious' than me when inspecting all of his gear, checking upper winds etcetera and he is not afraid to say NO to a skydive when his safety-conditions are not met. Your emotion ("that AFF-instructor ought to chase my kid and pull as long as they are both in freefall") is understandable. This summer I was in a lot of loads where my kid was also on board and I found that under my tandem-canopy, yapping away with the passenger, I DO tend to look out for that one particular bright red canopy and I DO get worried when it takes me a minute or more to find it. However: with training and material (AAD) as it is and procedures as they are ("My instructor is still near me in freefall - I have TIME to get stable!") a larger than life 'superhero' chasing your kid in stead of showing some fabric might be counterproductive. Although it is almost impossible to predict the students behavior 'in a crisis', that is exactly what instructors are doing most of the time... I have seen people during static-line jumps that screwed a canopy into the ground or had a five seconds reserve ride. Apparently I thought they were going to do OK, but they didn't. This all made me cautious. But if standard operating procedures should be changed it is not OK to change them for our kids and leave them in place for the paying customers. And - if I may be so bold: It is perfectly OK to entrust your kid to the best instructor you can find. Once you do that you yourself should stear away from your kids training as fast as you can. Don't give the first jump course, don't give the tunnel instruction - just pull out your check book and observe from a distance... Just my $0,02... edited to say: I jsut noticed from your profile that you are not an instructor so you probably will not give the first jump course anyway. But for those who are and that have kids who are starting: Don't get involved with your kids (pre A-licence) training! You don't want a student you changed diapers on! "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

I thought you said "Flame away"? Anyway, the only instructor MY kid is still pissed off about is the one who pulled his ripcord @ 6000ft when they were slowly turning and my kid had a brainlock which made him forget what two stretched fingers ment...

It doesn't, but maybe this transition is not the first and only concern... At many places introductory static line courses still attract many students. Often these students (for various reasons) never get to the point where the transition after their A-licence becomes a factor. If that is the case. there is not much point in training them with 'smallish' wingloads, flat glides, deep penetration, etcetera. Having most (if not all) of them walk away unscathered during jump one, two and three may be the best possible outcome one can hope for... Whatever the manufacturers tell me in their advertisement, my feeling still is that the better performing canopies are also the ones that can bite you... Everybody who is jumping Velocity / Stiletto / Nitro etcetera at my place started out on Manta or Skymaster and sometimes with a ridiculously low wingload. They couldn't do with those 'boats' what they are doing now on every landing. But for each of these former students of mine there are at least 10 former students that also started out on Manta's and Skymasters, had a couple of days of great fun in which they made a couple of static line jumps in their beginners course and then they ran out of money or decided to spend it on something else... So in the long run it may be a better idea to concentrate on good transition courses after 15 to 25 jumps and keep the students under 'glorified rounds'... Does this limit the students? Yes, especially when the student is a lightweight - as soon as there is a litle wind they are grounded, But you also have to ask yourself what you want above your students head when - on jump 2 - he is right above the local village at 500 feet trying to decide which small backyard to aim for... Sooo ... I use Manta's and Skymasters and a few transition-rigs (Raven3, PD 210, ZP.EXE 190 and 170..) "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

1. Sit on the floor 2. shove all the feet out 3. Bend passengers leg / feet under the plane 4. Grab doorframe, say bye,bye and search for relative wind... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Therefore, a regulating body should only consider the safety-aspect. Please let us not forget that already TWICE an outside videographer interfered with an opening tandem with fatal results. Apparently this is an accepted risk since there's no BPA-ban on outside camera, to my knowledge... I do allow people around me in freefall while I'm doing tandem and so do lots of you. When things are as they should be YOU have the final saying on who you allow near you and who not. I'm well aware of these risks, otherwise I wouldn't have a standard briefing for those aspiring to dock with the tandempassenger, come near the tandempair or shoot video of the tandem for the first time. (In case you all forgot, there's always a first time...) I would have a problem with a regulating body that downright said NO to a piece of equipment that is widely in use elsewhere without reports about the disastrous results - mainly because they themselves probably feel that they could not cope with it, for apparently there are people that can and do cope... Only last friday I had to take the C182 around on jump run since I simply wasn't ready with my preparations with the handcam - this almost never happens with a straight-of-the-mill tandem. (However, recently in the Netherlands someone got stripped of his ratings for leaving the shoulder-hooks undone... afaik he wasn't wearing a handcam - grapevine tells us he deviated from his procedures since the passenger had such a strong body odor that it made him a bit nauseated and he wanted to postpone as long as he could - and then he forgot when the door slid open and everything started to move...) People do make mistakes. People do take on responsibilities and may make mistakes. And yes, make a series of mistakes when doing tandemskydives and you as well as your passenger can end up dead - what else is new?... When weighting one against the other neither esthetic considerations about the quality of the video nor considerations about the pool of '(semi)-professional skydivers' should play a role. Maybe I'm a bit too trustworthy but my gut-feeling says that only a small percentage of tandeminstructors would consider taking a handcam when they feel it might kill their passenger - with whome they share the parachute, remember? Hey, only yesterday I refused to jump with a passenger who I felt (and saw) to be too big and too stiff and too nervous. (my business terms and conditions say I can do that without being obliged to give an explanation. If you as a tandeminstructor jump at a DZ where that is not the case I would suggest to seek employment elsewhere - I'm pretty sure there's work to be found for a rated tandeminstructor who insists that he will have final saying and is under no obligation to discuss it with the rejected passenger...) Is there an added risk with handcam? Definitely. Can it be overcome with training, experience and knowledge? Wanna bet?