Liemberg

OK here goes: Internet Instruction: "Landings 101" 1. Flare at the right moment. Determining the right moment becomes easier once you have made more landings; flaring at the wrong moment should be survivable and the fact that it hurts a bit helps you to focus even better, next time around. 2. Wing Level & equal pressure on both toggles 3. Rolling when not necessary ruins your pink jumpsuit, Not rolling when necessary ruins your ankles. Choose between washing clothes and orthopedic surgery. Compared to walking with crutches for 2 months, standing up your landing is often overrated IMHO - it is a bonus for a well executed flare, but nothing is guaranteed - ever! 4. Have an unobstructed 'lane' to practice. 50 meters is OK - 500 meters is better. One or two meters is usually broad enough. 5. Your forward speed can be influenced by the wind. That is why you preffer your landing lane to face into the wind if there is any significant wind. 6. Practice makes perfection 7. There is no such thing as "Free" fall on this planet; invariably the planet gets in the way; when it does, DO NOT ACCELERATE - the planet has a bad reputation for not giving way...

Well, with you being the passenger chances are this is your FIRST jump, so I fail to see why I should be buying the beer. Are you that good looking?

Well, since it is quite a climb to the nearest step, I'd say you can't... The door (where you exit) in a C206/207 is more towards the tail than in a C182. It is behind the landing gear, not over it. That is also why you can't be on your knees, because the door is lower (i.e. distance between floor and top of the door). I can assure you that, other than a bit more wear on the drogue, there is no problem with that exit - in fact over here we all think the workload on a C206 exit to be a lot less than on a C182 exit ... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Since it is the only way to get out of a Cessna 206 / 207 - where the cabin + door is just not high enough to stand up like in an Otter / Caravan - I'd say it is pretty safe. BUT there will be more wear on the pouch, that has to be replaced more often. Greatest advantage I find is that the passenger can be 'molded' in a good body position, hanging outside the aircraft PRIOR to exit. (On my knees in the door, the passenger sitting in front with only his legs hanging out, my upper body is just too long and I bump my head against the door - Not smart...) While I'm at it: In a C182 I don't turn in the door inside the aircraft; I'm already backwards on take-off. During the hook-up I get on my knees and have the passenger sit on my lap, not on his/her knees but with legs in front like the whole ride up. Fast, safe, comfortable - what more does the elderly tandemmaster want...? "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

As pointed out before: Container opening isn't the same as canopy-deployment. I, for one replaced all 'swedish links' on static-line student canopies with small rapid links - you have to unscrew those. Why? Years ago, a student of mine proved that he was 'creative in an emergency' and disconnected the RSL PRIOR to his cut-away, after which he fell down until his AAD height... I found that a bit to close for comfort. I guess it is all a question of priority and I'm aware of the slight extra risk for the student that cuts away his main in a 2 canopies out situation. OTOH I do disconnect the tandem's RSL prior to landing when in high wind there is no catcher. (Or I'm not there where the catcher is ) Should I ever forget to do so, I'm at great risk of , but there wont be anything dragging me and my passenger through the terrain. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Try jumping on an Island 4 km wide on a DZ 1,5 km from the shore.... (Or any other DZ where to high openings can put you in immediate danger...) "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Wading through all the post in the heated debate about wingloadregulations vs. -education I noticed that one thing is missing in the discussion: the difference between larger 'turbine type' DZ's and smaller 'Cessna type' operations. It seems to me that on the larger DZ's 'people in charge' want to regulate where on the smaller places they want to educate. (for 'regulate' you can fill in: formal training in canopy handling, signing of proficiency cards, minimum jump numbers for certain wingloadings etc.; for 'educate' you can fill in none of the above but instead a one-on-one approach on a day-to-day basis with a solid knowledge of all the jumpers -and their abillities- at your place...) Also, some of the 'regulators' point to several countries where regulation is in place already. I'm from the Netherlands where we have this type of regulation and frankly, not everyone is happy with it. It is of course a problem of oversight and that is a lot easier with 20 people downsizing during a season than with 20 people downsizing every weekend - let alone people borrowing gear which they might buy etc. Where does that leave a national organisation like USPA? I would urge them not to fall into the same pit as their dutch counterparts, who wrote elaborate regulations that take into consideration things like jump-numbers, wingloading, jumps-in-the-last-year, mandatory canopy-training jumps and type of canopy with a list of types - which of course is incomplete. They put this whole thing in the BSR's so it is mandatory on all affiliated clubs and centres - yet almost nobody understands it completely... If you were to regulate, you should regulate the minimum i.e. things everyone can agree upon. (Come to think of it: Flipping through a Para-Gear catalogue I find lots of wingload recommendations - seems like every manufacturer has them - enforcing those shouldn't be to much of a problem since you only have to define 'novice' 'intermediate' and 'expert'...) Would that work as a solution fitting all? Probably not - lots of things that are not very smart when skydiving would remain 'allowed' in the BSR's. And it would not solve the big DZ's 'oversight' problem - but what is to stop the individual DZO to write his own set of rules and enforce them? If your multi-turbine-indoor-packing-world-class-coaches-team-rates-jacuzzi-DZ is attractive enough your clientele will cope with those rules. And there is nothing stopping you to debate / adjust /fine-tune anything "written down" in Perris with what is "written down" in Deland. Again, this would lead to something above a set of USPA rules, applicable to large DZ's with lots of traffic and not much oversight where it comes to the individual jumper. Of course the 'personal freedom' argument - though appealing - holds no ground here; it didn't in the AAD debates so it doesn't in this debate; when 'personal freedom' results in death and mutilation through lack of knowledge or 'too much testosteron' it looses all appeal rapidly. 2600+ jumps 1,6 semi elliptical - voted education, but now you now why... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Ever considered 'flying backwards'? You sit in 'jumpmasterposition' next to pilot or move there after the video climbs out (i.e. your back in the direction of the firewall). Not having 2 people turning in the door while attached at the hips makes life a lot easier. Nowadays I get on my knees behind the passenger, hook up, some 45 secs before 'door' I put them on my lap and tighten the lower straps, goggles on as the door opens, (move to the door BACKWARDS), my left foot on the step, passengers feet also on the step, bend passengers head towards my right shoulder, "ready set go ... HEELS ON MY BUM!" IMHO It reduces the workload for an exit with 50% - even more with a bigger tandemmaster/passenger combination....wished I had know that my first 300 tandemjumps from a C182 EDIT: there was 'left' where I ment to say 'right' - you all remember where John Cleese ended in the movie "Clockwork", right? "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

You are almost obliged to do something very very stupid, while skydiving, so as to provoke the ST&A or DZO into telling you to go bowling... (Just picture the look on their faces when you answer them...)

1300 ft If people have their picture taken they: 1. Don't come down to your level as promissed 2. Don't pull at the agreed-upon altitude If you are the one taking the pictures... O, well - lesson learned... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

I sleep on the ride up... Under canopy I like to surprise my passengers with my interpretation of "Volare" (only the chorus: "Volare OhO, Cantare OhO OhO !") I think it sounds even better as it does in my bathroom, but that's just me. Anyway - the audience never walks out on me...

Since he is not living in Holland, but in Australia, he can change canopies also without much concern about dutch canopy regulations... D**n! Again nobody seems to accept our moral & juristic leadership...

But my main point was that it was discussed in a court and - apparently - taken so seriously there that it found its way into the verdict. Note that on the one hand the lawyer tries to put the whole blame on the drowned victim, saying 'BVR violation - student not executing proper prescribed procedures for water landing' while the prosecutor says 'BVR violation, when landing in water DZ must have boat at hand for every jumper and the jumper must wear lifejacket' Both parties missing the point about what was actually written in the dutch BSR's at that time, yet the BVR was read by the court and played a role in the verdict. I don't see that happening when we are talking about guidelines. So, in an ever more litigious world (though in Holland not as severe as in the USA) when people 'try to hang me in a court of law' I don't want to supply the rope myself, nor do I want "my governing organization" (KNVvL) to supply it. (Though I must say they actually re-wrote the part about waterlanding right after the accident and before the lawsuit... talk about feeble attempts... ) "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Been checking sliderstops since before you knew parachutes existed kiddo... And - at the risk of boring all our international friends to death - on the verdict: The student couldn't be held accountable for her so-called 'breach of safety regulations' (as had been argued by the parachute centers lawyer) but I was refering to the boat that was supposed to be there (and had to be there according to the regulations had the waterjump been planned) - that's where the court saw a serious breach of the safety regulations on the part of the parachute centre. And that's what got them convicted IIRC. Now of course one could argue that the waterjump hadn't been planned and therefore a boat nor a life jacket were mandatory ... but AFAIK they were smart enough not to take it to a higher court. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

I apologize if my rhetoric is distracting instead of helping to get my point across. Of course I wouldn't tell anyone who is in charge at a particular DZ what to allow and what not. I just wished they would do me the same courtesy. In the last few years I have seen a development in dutch skydiving where no one is ever rendering account for what happens, yet I get more and more detailed rules and regulations. Most of those stem directly from the bigger DZ's that have a survey problem (to many people jumping at the same time while the person in charge has a problem estimating their individual abilities). Survey problems are tackled best with a general rule so I can understand what they want to do and why they want to do it. But I dont have the same survey problem - therefore I don't need those rules. For the sake of simplicity and a whole bunch of legal reasons I don't want rules that I can do without. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

To be completely fair it must be noted that the new dutch system tries to do both, since it prescribes 'transition jumps' where the downsizer is mandated (below C) / advised (C and above) to make canopy familiarization jumps with a prescribed/advised program, that consist of all sorts of things you would want to do with a new canopy. Jumps should be solely directed at the canopy, i.e. solojumps from 6000ft or above, making a H&P and finishing the program above 2000 ft. Since I have been doing that (though not as extensive as they put into the rules now) with every new toy I purchased since the Para Commander I jumped in 1982, I have no problem with 'advising with great emphasis' something like that to the youngsters. The proof of the pudding however is in the eating and for the canopy that would always be the landing of the dang thang... At my place I happen to have a huge field for the students but the big boys of course are allowed to look cool and land near the hangar. I have one rule however which is: New canopy? Land out at the students field - just like I do myself. Make stand up landings near the target, then return to the big boys landing area. Come to think of it, before now I never did write that down somewhere, yet cannot remember any 'violations' of this 'rule'... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

You can back out any time... And the 'rules of engagement' are quite simple, I believe. Attack my idea's, refute my beliefs, convince the audience. Moderators have the last word. (OK morons was a bit harsh - but directed at a group rather than an individual. You, of course, though very vocal in expressing their beliefs, are not part of that group.) But who's to say what is? Who died and left you in charge? (yes I know, another old usenet trick...

Please don't get distracted by the example. I picked it for rhetoric reasons. Could have picked just as easily someone who is a very accomplished canopy pilot and who can get an excellent deal on second hand gear. Just one step to far for the new dutch rules (downsizing in on step more than the 'bullseye' allows, a few jumps missing for a 'legal' downsize, canopy big enough but placed in another category, etcetera.) I can live with the guidelines but the morons decided to make it a RULE. My objection is against that, not against the 'bullseye' as a guideline which I can ignore if I see fit and apply ('hide behind') when my 'DZO-gut-feeling' points in another direction. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Anyone who lets 'popularity' dictate the decisions he takes as an S&TA /instructor and therefore needs rules 'to hide behind' is in the wrong place. Once you accept that job, you inevitably gonna step on peoples toes. Writing rules for every conceivable situation is not going to help, though guidelines may come in handy - and you can hide behind those just as easily, should you feel the need to. I know it is easy for me ('Which part of NO you didn't understand? Which part of BOSS you didn't understand?') but it should be just as easy for others, you just put your foot down. Putting my foot down was a trick I mastered as a club instructor a long time ago, but maybe that skill got lost the last few years. If the big DZ you jump at has a problem controlling and overseeing somebody that I just sent away, should I adapt new rules? Come on, you gotta be kidding. From what I have seen here, I found the 'swedish chart' a lot easier and more straightforward as a guideline than the 'dutch bullseye'. And my own (semi) elliptical Sonic 135 (loaded at 1.7) isn't even on the dutch list. Can I jump it next month? (My last few jumps were on 170, since I lent the 135 to someone who wrecked his own canopy...) I have over a 1000 jumps (+/- 2500), I am current on the 170 non-elliptical, I made less than 100 jumps last year. Then again, my landing area is 1200 x 500 meter... Should I come to Teuge so you can give me a canopy control course and sign me off, before I jump my Sonic 135 again? If the problem is that locally there is no1 in charge, than that problem should be addressed. It is not addressed properly writing rules for everybody everywhere and in this case those rules will be breached massively (If only because people don't understand them and find them way too complicated...) "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Well Paul, if you have figuered out how to successfully do CRW with one participant 'floating like hell' and that participant being the newbie, I sure would like to know how to do that...

That's why I propagated on the dutch skydiving forum to make it a RECOMMENDATION instead of putting it in the BSR's as they did. As a DZO I see a whole can of worms opening up with this. I like vague rules and had no problem whatsoever telling people they couldn't jump a certain canopy since I felt it was to small for their abilities. I don't think I ever allowed anything at my place that was outside of the guidelines as they are written down now, but I never bothered to write them down - much less would I incorporate them in the RULES. The problem with those written RULES are that they - though not the law as such, have a funny way of surfacing in a court of law, when a mourning relative or an unhappy insurance company decides to take a shot at the most obvious party - the DZ where it happened... Also (from dutch jurisprudence) the KNVvL (dutch USPA) can be held responsible for the upholding of all their rules at all their affiliated DZ's. (The dutch gymnastics federation found that out and paid dearly for that knowledge...) When you make a rule you just cannot say 'O, well - this is experimental and if it comes in handy we might break it at our own discretion'. With a recommendation you can, with a rule you can't. Anybody would agree that it should be possible for Saskia to jump that Lightning 126 and participate in CRW that has any chance of success. Now she can't for it would break the rule. (notice they already refused it, IIRC...) Also, now that it has become a rule, it can be turned around quickly, where you would feel you have a certain 'right' to jump a certain canopy. I might disagree but that was a lot easier for me when it wasn't written down in the way it is now. (I know I still can refuse anything, but...) One final note in 'the blame game' Of course the responsibility for letting people jump at your place with canopies that are to much to handle for their experience lies with the DZ and not with the people that sold them the canopy. You check the logbooks, you have phone, fax & email to consult your colleagues should you not trust the logbook and certain customers - the ones that make headlines in the news and dents in the DZ - you just don't want. When you sell canopies, that is a whole different game and other than informing and warning you bear no responsibility. Got a million bucks? You can buy a ferrari and the sales rep doesn't have to check your driving abilities. The fact that most if not all skydiving gear dealers do ask about it is wonderful but not legally necessary. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

No problem in the Netherlands either. However, though not required by our BSR's (that say nothing about the passengers age) we changed to 14 as minimum age in our advertisement - but we waive that occasionally if the kid convinces us... There is no technical problem if the harness fits - just don't go chasing small legs and prepare for a sooooft and sloooow opening and little cell pressure/penetration...

OK - I'll bite... I think both programs are outdated and that what is called for is a new program which would be a 'hybrid'program, combining the best of both worlds. It would mean that the training would start with a tandem jump - to familiarize you with the environment, then you would start the classic static-line progression up untill your hop and pop (basicaly you do the same drill as you would with your dummy ripcord pulls - when you have jumped direct bag untill then, the parachute would only take 2 or 3 seconds longer to open, with IAD I think there would even be less difference.) Once cleared for hop and pops you would make a couple of jumps (as long as it takes to reach the target learning objectives for the last part of the AFF program) you do them starting with a harness-hold jump with one AFF jumpmaster, who is acting as primary, from 10000ft or above. You learn to control your body in freefall, check your altitude in freefall, maintain your heading in freefall and regain stability in freefall. Once you are cleared to what used to be AFF level 7 (after 4 to 6 jumps) you make solo jumps from gradualy lower altitudes until you are back at your 4000ft hop and pop. The best of both worlds, I think - and economicaly feasable... First tandem lets you decide if you want to be a skydiver and what that would mean, static-line progression familarizes you with the concept of being on your own out there and having to cope with that - checking your canopy, deciding if you can land it or should go for the reserve, learning how to steer it, 'become tough & independent' so to speak. Then into the freefall environment with hands-on instruction. Why only one instructor? To keep the program economically feasable and since there is no need for two. After all, you have PROVEN to be able to jump on your own and pull the parachute (You already envisaged that to be the most important part? Excellent!

I dunno Bill, I do believe in something I would like to call 'organic growth'. Like: "Somewhere down the road" I found out my assessment of the altitude was pretty accurate - the altimeter confirmed what I knew already. My peripheral vision in freefall improved. I could make stand up landings in tighter and tighter spots. When I look at students, I see the same all the time - one person gets there a bit faster than the other, and the endresult is not always the same for everybody - each one gets there at his own pace and the better jumper is not equivalent to the safer jumper. However as far as I see it Listo's original question was about an operation with 'modern equipment' (piggyback / IAD or static line square main that should be cutaway in case of malfunction, etc.) They are sending their first jump students up without an altimeter. That is ludicrous, even though I myself made my first 40 jumps without an altimeter. But that was with rounds + chestmounted reserve that shouldn't be cut away. Since the altimeter is gonna malfunction anyway sometime in the future, the best you can do is 'preach the virtues' of looking at cloud layers on the way up and all the other clues that come in handy. There is not much point in making an altimeterless (or AAD-less) jump to make people less 'device dependent' (I know chuteless has been done but I'm way to chicken...so there is at least on 'device' I'll always take with me...

Well, uh... we don't do that either, taking our altimeters for a swim - but Saskia asked me if we were obliged to, under our equivalent of the BSR. So I checked and apparently we are... (everybody knows BSR to be an acronym for 'BullShitRules', isn't it?