Gary73

I've been using E thread in my Singer 237 (home machine) since '77 with very few problems. I mainly use 90/14 ball-point needles. 16s would be better, but are harder to find in ball point. Yeah, tangles are usually a tension issue. If the machine is set up for lighter thread, the bobbin tension may be too high with E thread. Also, on a lot of machines it's necessary to hold on to both thread ends for the first few stitches. Another issue can be lubrication. Unless the machine is properly lubed, things can get out of sync and cause any number of issues. Needle breaks are usually caused by the seam-person pulling the material too much, causing the needle tip to be pulled forward so far that it impacts the bobbin frame. If this happens enough, it can scar the bobbin to the point that it snags the thread and causes problems of its own. I actually prefer my 237 over any of the heavier machines for canopy work, though Dave DeWolf has some really sweet Consews at his place now. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Always order the next size up from what the Wings sizing chart says. Ditto with Mirage. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

The thing that determines reserve size is your exit weight. Calculate that, decide which brand reserve you want, then go to that manufacturer's Web site and see what they recommend for your EW and experience level. Be conservative - you may not be using your reserve under ideal conditions. Almost all non-tandem reserves have seven cells. That makes for a more stable opening. Flare varies by model, but since reserves are almost always made entirely from F-111 fabric they fly a little slower than a similarly sized zero-porosity canopy. As a result, the flare may not be as powerful, but it doesn't need to be if you choose the right size. BTW, if you order a Mirage or Wings container, tell them your reserve is the next size up from whatever you actually decide on. Those two manufacturers are way too optimistic about how big a canopy their containers will hold. All your future riggers will thank you. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

So anyway, if we could get back to the original purpose of this thread, what are each manufacturer's requirements to be a wingsuit instructor? We've only gotten answers regarding Phoenix-Fly and Nitro so far. Can we hear from some instructors or examiners or whatever for the others? Thanks. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Have things gotten so bad that we no longer feel that USPA is us? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Not exactly. I went through the first three pages of that thread and didn't see a list of requirements by different manufacturers, just the usual off-topic stuff. I do understand that USPA doesn't have a wingsuit instructor rating; I was just trying to get a feel for what the various manufacturers are doing. Some have formal programs, but I don't see anything on the Tony Suits site, for example, so I was hoping that someone in the know could enlighten us. This is a matter which I suspect will be getting some attention over the next few months. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Thanks! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Hi, I know that I felt that I had been well prepared by my instructor before making my first wingsuit jump, but the incident at Sebastian has me curious as to what requirements each wingsuit manufacturer has for becoming an instructor for their products. If we could get one reply from someone with each manufacturer rating that would be great. For that matter, do all manufacturers have programs like BirdMan's for training and certifying instructors? Also, is it considered acceptable to refer to yourself as a "wingsuit instructor" without having a manufacturer rating of any kind? Thanks! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

If this is an essay that you're going to send as part of a college entrance application package, I'll stick with my earlier reply. If it's just a standard homework exercise (either high school or college), then yeah, tell 'em all about it, but be sure to make it clear that no words in any language can truly describe it. Good luck either way! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

If this is for a college-entrance-exam kind of thing, I'd recommend something a little more along the lines of serving the community while developing the skills and having experiences oriented toward broadening yourself so as to become a valued member of society. They love that kind of crap. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Something for everyone: Crash Serenity Love Actually (kind of a chick flick, but still good) Unforgiven We Were Soldiers 300 Juno Team America Forrest Gump The Big Country "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Small world! I just built an altimeter test chamber of my own. The pump is a Barnant 400-1901 that I got new on eBay for $19.99 plus S&H. The rest is mainly stuff that I had lying around the shop, so the whole thing cost less than $50. It'll run up to 22,000 feet in under a minute, then come down at about freefall speed once the power is cut. The original plan was to include a Vertical Speed Indicator, but I couldn't find one that would handle our fall rates. Oh well, 5 - 6 seconds per thousand feet is probably close enough. It doesn't include a certified reference altimeter, but if you put three or four units in there and they all read the same, they must all be right, right? The reason I was more concerned with vertical speed than with actual altitude is that units that read the same on the way up in the plane may not read the same on the way down in freefall. In other words, the rate at which the air pressure changes can definitely affect the reading. Anyway, I don't have any plans or anything, since I followed my usual approach of designing it as I went along, but if anyone's interested in making a similar unit, feel free to PM me. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Some good points above, but unfortunately the problem isn't limited to low-timers, and it isn't even limited to the people who fly highly-loaded canopies. Too often it's guys with thousands of jumps who kill themselves, or, worse yet, kill innocent bystanders who are flying standard landing patterns. Unfortunately, DZOs can't prevent all of these accidents, but many could do more to reduce their probability by requiring the separation of high-performance and standard landings by time and/or location. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Thanks. Never been to SDC, haven't heard any safety or training-quality complaints about the place, and don't see anything in my post above to imply otherwise. I was asked to express my thoughts about S&T in general so I did so in the S&T Forum. This thread has nothing to do with SDC, Rook, his BOD candidacy, or my preference in that race. You're damn right I'm scared of colliding with a swooper - or anyone else for that matter! We've lost way too many skydivers that way lately. We have very little trouble with this at my home DZ, since we do separate traffic by time and area. My whole point was that some DZOs (including yours, from what you write) don't separate traffic. And individual jumpers can't just invent their own landing areas any more than they can invent their own landing patterns. Those need to be consistent, known to everybody, and enforced on everybody, which can only happen with the DZO's support. And even when all that's in place, it only takes one guy breaking the rules one time to cause a tragedy, but that's a subject for another thread. But yeah, I'll push off to the alternate landing area at the slightest excuse. As our DZO puts it, "Walking is good for you!". "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Probably, but at least it keeps us off the streets. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Over on the USPA BOD Elections Forum I was asked to express my thoughts on matters relating to safety and training. I don't know why, since I'm not a candidate and I never claimed to know what's good for every dropzone, but some of the folks there have been quite insistent, so here's Installment One. (You might want to take a potty break now!) There a lot of different factors involved in this area and no one of them can fix everything, but the single most important factor is the dropzone owner. Partly that's a matter of numbers: The U.S. has about 30,000 active skydivers and thousands of instructors, but only about 300 DZOs. But mostly it's about the DZO's role: He's the one who creates the overall personality and environment at the dropzone. He's the one who has to make the important and sometimes difficult and unpopular decisions that most of us don't even think about. To name a few, he's the one who decides: - To choose a location with a large landing area with few hazards and plenty of outs (or not!) - To use properly maintained jump planes (or not!) - To use qualified jump pilots (or not!) - To support the pilot on who's-in-command issues (or not!) - To establish proper aircraft fueling and operating procedures (or not!) - To enforce seatbelt and helmet rules (or not!) - To enforce the door-closed-on-takeoff rule (or not!) - To use a safe exit order and interval (or not!) - To have modern, well-maintained student, Tandem, and rental gear (or not!) - To have (and actually use) an effective student training program (or not!) - To provide opportunities for advanced training in areas like canopy control (or not!) - To use USPA-rated instructors who put student learning and safety ahead of making a lot of jumps (or not!) - To give instructors enough time to do thorough ground preps (or not!) - To abide by reasonable wind limits for students (including Tandems) (or not!) - To insist that staff members set a good example in their own behavior (or not!) - To hold Safety Day and/or other such activities (or not!) - To have rules (or at least strong guidelines) regarding canopy progression (or not!) - To establish landing patterns (or not!) - To separate high-performance and regular landings (or not!) - To educate both jumpers and local aircraft pilots on how to avoid conflicts (or not!) - To make Safety and Training Advisor a meaningful position (or not!) - To counsel anyone who breaks rules (or not!) and, if necessary, - To discipline anyone who ignores counselling (or not!) The vast majority of DZOs score well on the above, but if you look at the close calls, injuries, and fatalities that we have in the sport, I think you'll find that a lot of them are indicative of failures in one or more of these areas. Don't get me wrong: I have a lot of respect for almost all the DZOs I've met. I've seen the dedication that they demonstrate day after day, often for a business that gives very little return on investment, financially at least, and often for customers who do little but complain. We should all thank the good DZOs out there every now and then. But for any DZOs who read this and feel that some of these items cut a little deep, don't shoot the messenger, fix the problem: you're the only one who can. Having said all that, instructors and regular jumpers play a role here, too. If you have safety concerns, talk with your S&TA and/or DZO. Maybe there's a good reason for what's happening. Or maybe it's a gray area and your opinion just happens to be a little more on the conservative side, but both opinions are valid. (There's a lot of that in this sport!) But after that, if you honestly think that your DZO is not sufficiently safety oriented, then your only recourse is to vote with your feet and take your business or services elsewhere. And don't give me any crap about that meaning that you'll have to drive farther. Commute time will be the least of your concerns if your plane goes into the trees or some swooper hits you from behind at 80 MPH. Now as for what USPA can do about all this, the answer is: not much. It might be nice to have a manual of "best practices", kind of like a SIM for DZOs, but DZOs are mostly pretty experienced skydivers, and are often riggers and pilots, too. They generally know when they're trading safety for convenience or income, and aren't interested in having anyone remind them. As for enforcement, the Skyride debacle proved that USPA can't discipline any dropzone owner who knows a lawyer, and now that every DZO in the country knows that, USPA probably won't even try unless the offense is a real jaw-dropper. The problem here is that the Group Member Program is too much like a Trade Organization, making it a federally regulated entity and prohibiting USPA from imposing restrictions on how group members operate. So those would be my recommendations for what the BOD can do about this aspect of Safety and Training: 1. USPA should develop a "DZO's Information Manual" which combines information from the SIM, FARs, the two USPA/FAA videos, the "Starting a DZ" packet, and input from the S&T Director and Committee, PIA, NTSB, FAA, experienced jumpers, instructors, DZOs, jump pilots, and maybe airport managers. This would include "best practices" on all the items above, and it should be available to everyone free online and for a reasonable price in printed form. Such a manual would help DZOs who are open to such things to create the safest environment possible. After that, it's up to the jumpers. 2. USPA should abolish the Group Member Program and go back to serving skydivers, not dropzones. That way USPA would be free to provide safety-related services to ALL dropzones, while still being able to issue something like a "USPA Approved" rating to dropzones which follow both safety and ethics guidelines. Then jumpers and potential jumpers could choose a dropzone based on something more than location and how cool their Web site is. And I guess that'll do it for Installment One. If there's enough interest, I'll go for Two sometime. Meanwhile, it's your turn now: Let us know how you feel about the DZO's role in Safety and Training. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Definitely keep jumping as frequently as you can. More than once a month if at all possible. If your home DZ closes over the Winter, find another one. Florida's nice, but you don't have to go that far if time and/or money are issues. If you just can't get to a dropzone at all, at least go to a wind tunnel and get a few minutes there every month. It's not skydiving, but it's a whole lot better than staying on the ground all Winter! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Whoops. Guess I need to spend more time on the Internet... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Ummm, can we get back to the original issue? As I understand it, it is "Does our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion extend to include a freedom from religion? Many religious people think it does not. I've never heard of the FFRF before, but I like what they're saying. As for the claim somewhere above that this is a case of athiests trying to push their agenda again, I find that pretty amazing. It's 63 miles from my house to the dropzone. On that drive I pass 46 churches. Each one is a bold statement that this God person not only exists, but has certain characteristics. In contrast, I've been driving for 38 years and I've never seen a single athiest building or billboard. All the FFRF folks asked for was a few places where they could ask us to simply imagine a world in which separation of church and state is a reality. Apparently some people not only don't want to imagine that, they don't want anyone else to imagine it either. Very sad, in so many ways. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Cessna 310. Attaching photo of An-2. Supposed to be a good jump plane, but I don't think there are any active ones in the U.S. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Sign for a clinic just south of Atlanta. It raises so many questions. I wanted to go in and ask, but the sign says... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Jen, I don't think that I missed what you're saying. Legally, we are only responsible for making sure that the rig is legal on the day it's signed and sealed. Ethically, I'd say that we're obligated to ensure that the owner understands the particular situation. After that it's their responsibility. As for the pilot's responsibility, unfortunately the FARs don't really recognize the difference between a pilot keeping an emergency rig in the plane and a pilot hauling jumpers. The FAA should really codify what is already the real-world rule, namely that skydivers are solely responsible for their own gear. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Jen, As I understand it, nothing has really changed. There has always been the possibility that a legally packed reserve and CYPRES will have its battery hit the 2-year mark or its AAD need its service before the next repack. The FAA only says that "If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device." Airtec requires that "the batteries be replaced the first time the low battery error code (8998/8999) is encountered during self-test, or every two years, or every 500 jumps, which ever of these occurs first." They only recommend that the owner have the rigger "replace the battery if the two year period will be up before the next scheduled repack". In other words, the rigger is no more responsible for making sure that the two-year point isn't hit during the upcoming cycle than he is for making sure that the 500-jump point isn't hit. Or the 8998-code point, for that matter. Now if the owner intends to be jumping throughout the 180-day cycle, it's certainly a good idea to go ahead and have the rigger replace the battery and/or send the unit in for maintenance if it's going to need it during the repack cycle, but that's the owner's choice. For all the rigger knows, the owner isn't going to be jumping during that post-two-year-pre-180-day period. The rigger should make sure that the owner understands the options before doing the pack job, but has met his legal obligations as long as the rig is legal the day it's signed and sealed. The owner is responsible after that, just as he is responsible for making sure that the seal is intact and that the rig passes an external inspection before every jump. Jumpers and riggers in a lot of other countries have been facing this issue for years now, seeing as most other countries have had repack cycles longer than 120 days for a long time now. We just need to educate our customers regarding the consequences of the new cycle, especially during the transition period. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

dpreguy, Please fill in your profile. Thanks. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

It's all negotiable. Some sellers will want the prospective buyer to pay for shipping up front, but when I've sold gear I've always been willing to pay for shipping to a rigger. That person then inspects the item along with the prospective buyer. If it's acceptable, the buyer pays the seller. If not, he ships it back at his expense. The rigger enforces it either way. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan