NickDG

Unless they live in a town with a big DZ, or have friends that jump, potential students have no idea how skydiving operations are set up and run. For all they know it could be like a traveling carnival that comes into town from time to time. The most gullible students (probably 98% of them) would do anything you told them to do on the phone. They could be told no food by mouth after midnight the day before they jump and they'd believe it. Instructors (and most up jumpers) consider skydiving students inviolate. They're our most innocent class of jumper and they deserve our protection. The fact this even has to be said points to how low the sport has sunk. I've said this before, but the sad part is had skyride been set up right they could have still been wildly successful. Had they sent jumpers to the nearest DZ, had they not sold them extras like weather insurance, big plane upgrades, and other stuff that is not industry standard, had they not gouged them on the price, but just charged a little more . . . Skyride could have done the national advertising while the DZ's handled their local markets and it could have worked out just fine for both. But instead they lied, they stole and they cheated. And like a fly-by-night tandem mill operation, Skyride will milk this for all they can get and then someday suddenly disappear. The greatest gift we get from students is their trust and Skyride violates that trust . . . NickD

Sometimes slide rule figuring can get you in trouble. While you can use things like laser range finders and then do the math you want to get past that stage as fast as possible. You need to be able to "eyeball" it. You want to get to the point where you look up at an object and imagine yourself standing on the edge. Then you can visually picture yourself doing various delays, seeing where those delays will leave you under canopy, and what your landing options are at each of those points. I know that's hard to do without experience, but it's an ability you'll need to acquire. Also, keep this in mind. On the medium sized objects the length of the delay, in most cases, in not decided by the height of the object, it’s decided by how long you need to be under a canopy in order to reach a safe landing area. In other words you could have a 1000-foot tall building where you can easily do a 5 or 6 second delay. But if the park you must land in four or five blocks away than your delay may be limited to 2 or 3 seconds. My girlfriend, who works for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) here in California, can plot the navigation of a space ship to Mars (she did the Rovers there now) using nothing but pure mathematics. But that doesn't work in BASE jumping because of all the variables. When the Rovers entered the Martian atmosphere their knees weren't knocking and their teeth weren't chattering. So I worry sometimes when others (not you) whip out the physics formulas to explain BASE jumping. The only real physics I've ever seen in BASE is when someone admits, "Man, I just shit my pants . . ." NickD

>>it doesn't really matter whether I am the first to jump something or not, as long as I am not the last.

How did I dis you - I didn't say a thing to you here or "over there." NickD

Come join the fun . . . http://www.blincmagazine.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=59 NickD

This is funny . . . I wanted to check the facts, spelling, etc. and I looked it up on the rec.skydive archive and the first post to appear was my own from 15 years ago. Still valid though . . . LOL. NickD >Jim Handbury built two models of the Dactyl. A single and double keel version. Their flight performance was midway between the popular ram airs of the time (Strato Clouds and Strato Stars) and the small RW rounds (Piglets and Starlites). Some thought they were difficult to pack and breaking even one suspension line usually meant you had to chop it. And yes, they were meant to be flared, but landings were hard by today's standards. For a short time the canopy was available with a container designed for it called the Razorback, or the Double Dactyl. Right before his death, Jim was selling the canopies for $190.00 each. Did you say you were thinking of trying one? (Well, have a rigger look it over as they "are" getting old) and find someone on the DZ who remembers how to pack one and pick a day with a steady 10 MPH wind so you don't hammer in. Have Fun!! Nick

Good on him . . . This is the first of many "gut level" decisions he'll need to make, and he's not approaching it with a follow the herd mentality. We need way more of that in the sport. Besides, he writes so well, I'll be following his progress, if he chooses to share it with us. And that's coming from someone who needs to hear another student story like I need a hole in the head . . . NickD

An oldie, but a goodie, especially if you wait until the last minute. Tie a cooking pot around your neck with a big dildo inside it and go as Peter Pan. Works every time . . . NickD

We all remember that observer. (I wasn't there.) It was 1981 or '82 I think, and one of the jumpers thought something was up as she moved toward the door as a group exited. Most observers naturally won’t go near an open door. The weird thing, he said later, is she was stuffing her camera down her shirt. And even though he motioned her away from the door - out she went! The way we heard the deployment story was, she didn’t hang on to anyone on exit, but one of the jumpers saw her tumbling around outside the formation and he went over and deployed her. After she landed (it was a round parachute, wasn't it, in a pilot's rig?) she was summarily kicked off the property. When we thought about it later I think everyone over reacted to it. Skydiving is fun, the jumpers in the plane were having fun, and she wanted to have fun too. None of us Instructors every looked at an observer quite the same again . . . In fact for awhile the observer briefing included the line, "If you jump, and somehow live through it, number one I'm going to kick your ass, and number two you're going owe me one hundred dollars for the first jump course that you stole." In fact, the whole practice of even allowing observers onboard started to wane after that . . . NickD

Carl Boenish, who's in Heaven right now and probably still be chased by Park Rangers, is smiling down on you. Wait a minute – there are no Rangers in Heaven . . . NickD

Jim Handbury was a Southern California rig manufacturer who's "Handbury Rig" was a regionally popular rig that gave the Wonderhogs (Vector) and the SST (Racer) a run for their money. The So Cal jumpers, at the time, had an attitude like those other two rigs were so Florida . . . Jim built the first two Velcro closed BASE containers (the forerunner of every BASE rig built today) for Carl and Jean Boenish in about 1983 after Carl asked him for something simpler so they could make 300-foot balloon jumps at Lake Elsinore. I only met him a few times, but I know his former wife Dana better and she would be a good source of info. Jim was killed (I have to go look this up to be sure of the year) in the early to middle 80s whilst testing an emergency parachute attached to a Cessna. The parachute fouled on the tail and Jim bailed out but didn't get a canopy in time. I've always thought every BRS system on ultralights (Ballistic Recovery System) and the system used on the current Sirius production aircraft should be called the Handbury System. Jim also had a hang gliding background (the two sports were very intertwined in the 1970s in California) and he flew the hang glider with two jumpers that launched over Yosemite Valley. The two jumpers left the hang glider, did a quick two way and landed in the valley below. This jump was made three years before Carl Boenish organized his Yosemite loads that started the entire BASE jumping revolution in 1978. But it was the very beginning of the battle (still raging today) between jumpers and Park Rangers. Another interesting tidbit (courtesy of Sparky) is Jim never held an FAA rigger's ticket. I'll guess it was because they didn’t have a third classification of riggers, and the one that would have fit him, "Wizard rigger." Had he lived I'll venture Jim would have been one of the biggies in rig manufacturing today. We can only wonder what innovative ideas we lost the day he died. NickD

Yes, static lining it seems a bit weird by today's standards and some of us even questioned it at the time. If I had to guess the reason I would say Alistair and Mike were both from Europe and at the time, they didn't have a lot of tall objects to freefall. The Brits, especially, were the kings of static line BASE. And this was during a time it was being shunned in the U.S. in favor of direct bag. The advice in those days, if you wanted to learn static line BASE, was go find a Brit. The changes that have occurred in the last twenty years, in terms of gear, techniques, and available objects is hard to judge unless you lived it, but the older I get the more I appreciate what the Brits were able to accomplish at the time. In the end, I'm sure Mike and Alistair knew they could freefall it, but they probably figured it was such a high profile jump they'd be better off sticking with what they were the most comfortable with. And that makes sense . . . Besides they were probably sweating the landing more than the launch. There's a video (I have it somewhere) and they didn’t seem to have any trouble getting over the fence, hooking in, and going. Of course meaningful security on the ESB observation platform was almost non-existent in those days. I must add the following because it did occur. There were more than a few American BASE jumpers pissed at them (not me, I was global before it was cool, ) for bagging such a premier American object, not because they burned it, that wasn't a big worry in those days, it was the fact the bloody wankers did it first . . . Jake's book "Groundrush" gives a good account of the state of BASE jumping in Great Britain at the time and it's a little jewel of a BASE time capsule if you can find a copy. NickD

I believe the only "good" reason to join the service is if you desire to actually become a career soldier, sailor, airmen, or Marine. A three or four year hitch, just to learn a job, isn't the hot way to go especially for rigger training that can be had so easily and faster elsewhere. If, on the other hand, you were looking to get into some esoteric field like nuclear or other high tech area the service can be a good start "if "you qualify for those fields. But for parachute rigging – call Dave Dewolf, if you’re a quick study, or Sandy Reid, if you're not, and just take their civilian rigging course. You can do your jumping at any regular DZ. In a year you could have a nice little rigging loft going somewhere. And nobody on their first military enlistment is going to escape, "remedial military shit???." But, keep in mind, one misstep or one wrong word to the right person about the "remedial military shit???" and it's off to the infantry with you. So there's a very good chance, and given the current situation, even without pissing anyone off, you could wind up kicking in doors in Iraq and not packing parachutes . . . NickD

Alistair Boyd and Mike McCarthy if I remember correctly. Both were daytime static line jumps. I'd have to go look up the year, but it was probably the late 80s. NickD

Chuck Sweeny . . . He was jumping a LA building he jumped before, and unknown to him, the President (Bush 1) was over-nighting in a hotel directly across the street. He made the Secret Service look pretty bad as they were clueless until after he landed. He could have flown his canopy, they realized later, right into the President's window with a load of explosives. And then it turned into the Keystone Cops with them firing their guns wildly at him as he careened his car through a parking lot and made good his escape. They later arrested him at his home after they had to call him on the phone because they couldn't find his house, even though they had the address from his license plates. Initially, Chuck didn't know who was chasing and shooting at him. Security guards gone berserk? A street gang? His car was sporting more than a few bullet holes as drove home shaking like a leaf and wondering what the hell all that was about. There's been, since then, a paragraph or two I'm sure, in the Secret Service manual concerning terrorist BASE jumpers and don't think they haven't made note, and have the cold willies, over the recent BASE jumps being made in Iran . . . Anyway, on the phone, they identified themselves as Secret Service and told Chuck they just wanted to talk to him and he gave them the directions. When he opened the door they rushed him, cuffed him, and carted him off to some downtown office without a word. And then they weren't buying his story. They just couldn't see jumping off a building as fun, much less a sport, and Chuck said later he repeated the story so many times that night it started to sound ridiculous even to him. The final result was the King's X. The Secret Service didn't want the story of their ineptness to come out so they told Chuck to forget all about it. I doubt he ever has . . . NickD

What saved JD from more serious consequences, at the time, was the police, the DAs, and the judges didn't know much about BASE jumping, or more so, had never heard of it. So they didn't feel a need to make an example of him as they figured this isn't a huge social problem. They reasoned, how many wackos jumping off buildings with parachutes could there be? So at the time (late 80s) you usually got a small fine (mostly probation) and sometimes even a few light hearted laughs from lawyers and judges stuck in a courtroom that's usually filled by nasty thugs and gang bangers. The fact this is not the case anymore is too many of us let the BASE cat out of the bag. The difference between JD and John is one of adding or subtracting from the whole. JD was pushing hard on what was a very small BASE envelope of the day and he was a respected BASE jumper. John seems to be doing something completely different, almost to the point of being a rebel without a cause. JD was a true BASE character in the best sense – go anywhere with him - and your sides would be aching from laughter. On the other hand, and in his defense, John, who I've had some phone conversations with, doesn't come across totally the way he is portrayed. (Do any of us?) But to say he's accident prone, and there is a problem with his methodology, is a big understatement. Every time JD was busted he was running - not hanging off a tower or building or found in a heap . . . However, I've seen it many times with countless jumpers before him. John will come around somewhere down the line - everyone does if they stay around long enough. NickD

There are two kinds of reserve containers - Pop Tops and everything else. Everything else is just a version of the same thing - trapping the reserve pilot chute inside the container. Because the reserve ripcord pin is "exposed" on the latter, i.e. not tucked away against your back like on a Pop Top, the addition of the extra pin protection flaps, and with today's tighter reserves, cosmetic flaps, are a crutch supporting not a totally bad design, but not the best either. The problem of more flaps was addressed by adding a stronger spring to the reserve pilot chute and this can cause the possibility of the loop material being pinned between the half dozen, or so, grommets locked in place by the pressure of an aggressive pilot chute spring. Even a slight hesitation in the loop clearing the grommets can really take the starch out of your pilot chute launching. Somebody is chasing their tail here – fix one problem and create another. You don't "trap" your main's pilot chute in the container - so why do it on your reserve? You want a system that just "let's go." A reserve pilot chute should expend it's energy launching out of your burble, not pushing flap after flap after flap out of the way . . . John Sherman's Racer version of the Pop Top is essentially the same today as it was in the 1970s because it works. Later on Mick's Reflex, also a Pop Top, did make improvements. But, that was more a testament to Mick's talent than flaws in the original system. The situation nowadays is rig preference is being driven by the jumpers and not the manufactures. In the early days they gave us what they had – now they are giving us what we want – and what the hell do we know? NickD

>>Back when Bill Booth started the company, relative work was the hot new skydiving discipline, popular with the long-haired, dope-smoking, baggy pant hippies of the day.

In out little corner of the death market I too gag when I hear, "they died doing what they loved." It's a comfort thought expressed by those left behind and believe me, the deceased, in their last seconds are cursing the day they ever saw a parachute . . . NickD

Cheese it . . . NickD

>>Why on earth would a business with such a strong name give it up for a new name?

Me too. It's time for the invasion of Fredericksburg. It even sounds patriotic . . . We stage a para-coup. We'll install Sparky as President, Bill Von in charge of Safety and Training and I'll do the magazine – which I'm re-naming "Sky-Boy!" NickD

Ken Coleman was killed in the crash of a hot air balloon as a passenger (they flew into power lines) in 1979, but the original 7-jump AFF syllabus he created was already completed. He'd been working on it, in Florida, since 1977. He received a waiver from the USPA to begin making "harness hold" jumps in 1979 and was just about to present the program to USPA, hoping to get overall approval, when he was killed. So while there have been refinements to the program over the years, and some DZs have added an eighth Level (usually a hop & pop), it was not left un-finished. Usually, a DZ will use whatever training method matches their staffing levels. It's hard to have a full blown AFF program if you don't have a number of experienced AFF Instructors. The aircraft available also enters the equation. Reciprocating type Cessna aircraft are better suited to static line jumping while the cabin class turbine aircraft like the Otters are better for AFF. So basically we had two programs, static line and AFF, and that served us well for many many years, also, in the early-nineties the tandem program going in full swing. There was a small explosion of new jumpers and new DZs and all of a sudden there was a bit of money to be made. That old joke that it costs a fortune to make a fortune wasn't exactly true anymore. In any case there was a shortage of qualified Jumpmasters and Instructors. Most good AFF Instructors would only spend a summer or two stuffed into the back of a Cessna and sweating before heading off to a bigger drop zone. So what happened is the smaller DZO has to work with what they had. So we started seeing "hybrid" programs. Changing anything about the way students are taught was like pulling teeth. But by this time we had several ways of making a first jump. There was Tandem, AFF and IAD. So some DZOs began combining these programs. This mix and match system produced tandem to free fall. That's - depending on how you want to interpret the rules – 3 to 5 tandems and then straight to single jumpmaster AFF. Now all a DZO needed is one Cessna, one pilot, one tandem Instructor, one AFF Instructor, the gear, some land, and he's in business . . . In the end all this is born of efficiency, and not so much, for turning out heads-up students. The TLOs on student tandem jumps aren't that difficult in a training wheels sense. And I've been on single jump master AFF jumps, the student's first off tandem, that weren't much fun at all. And they were starting solo canopy control at the same time. Your particular DZO promoting static line by knocking AFF is disturbing as it is unnecessary, especially in front of you, the student. However, if you had went and made your static line jump, that very day, you would have had a ball. We are real good at first jumps, no matter how you make them. If you have problems, like most continuing students will, they show up during your progression and here's where the quality of the instruction can make or break you. You may have seen a recent airing on TV of the Army's HALO program; basically it's their "freefall" school and pretty similar to a civilian AFF program. But, there's one big difference, if a student can't stop spinning, or can't exit stable, or has canopy control problems, the instructors tell them to pack and get on the bus . . . Man, that's a cushy Instructor job. (Yes, I understand why they do it that way.) The rest of us have to fix those problems. And frankly some Instructors are better at it than others. But most of us started skydiving in a vacuum and with a certain amount of serendipity to it. You knew somebody, or you picked up the yellow pages, and all of sudden there you were practicing PLFs. The fact you are coming armed with all this "internet" information probably hurts more than helps you and nowadays, "You read that on DZ.com, didn't you . . ." is now part of most AFF first jump courses. Oh, and BTW, Ken Coleman's AFF program was descendent of Bob Sinclair's "harness hold jumps" done in the 1960s. It didn't catch on then – as Bob was just too ahead of his time . . . NickD

This is a big ball floating around that no one really wants to catch. While there are experienced jumpers who work for the FAA there's no "Go Team" like is dispatched to airplane accident scenes. They will, mostly, defer to the DPRE, a local master rigger examiner who gives the parachute rigger's test, if they have questions. If you look through the older FAA accident databases they did include "fatals" that were otherwise run of the mill but didn’t involve the aircraft. They seemed to have stopped doing that now. In their defense the USPA has done a pretty good job of clueing people into how to die while skydiving. Paul Sitter's 20-odd years of annual fatality reports should be bound into a handout students read before bothering with the SIMs. But, in some areas, USPA pulls their punches. Some of it they did wrong in the first place and the second is a reflection on the times. When I started the BASE Fatality List I printed the name of the deceased jumper because I thought personality was an accident factor - for good or bad. It's a tough pill to swallow, sometimes, but viewing the accident sans the person is missing a big chunk of information. The legal ramifications are another stifling effect. The old saying that only the good die young is very true for the most part. But, from time to time, people do die because they are almost asking for it. Sometimes they are in over their heads, too dim-witted, or even misled. One accident conclusion the USPA never cites is their instructional program failed somebody. Surely, in more than a few cases, this must be true. So to answer your question, no, there is no independent "expert" investigation of almost any skydiving fatality. It's all very conveniently "in-house." NickD

Can you get custom embroidery with that . . . ? NickD