seal_S49

I have had difficulty in finding Supplex in a good variety of colors & thickness (plies). Will you share with us your source for this? Thanks!

Some confusion may still linger because not long ago, the A license required 20 freefall skydives, excluding SL jumps.

I've been wearing, constructing, and repairing Supplex suits for a number of years and prefer it for it's durability. Extremely resistant to tears and fading. One possible advantage to cotton would be coarser weave texture available (depends on suit mfr.) for slower fall rates. Supplex is fairly fast. Comfort may be another factor. Cotton is softer and may breath better, but I don't have a problem with Supplex in hot weather. As far as Taslan, I'm not sure how that will differ from Supplex... Hope this helps.

IMO you’re overestimating the value of this dick-measuring contest that you started. There is no number of years of experience or type of ratings earned that make your political opinions more valid. Everyone who reads & posts here has a valid personal opinion. Your attempt to gain credibility by falling back on your seniority has had the opposite effect as far as I’m concerned. But that is just an opinion.

Are you planning on making a double lens assembly by fastening 2 lenses together? My ski goggles are made this way w/ foam that has adhesive on both sides. If so, weather stripping foam tape may not work because it usually has adhesive on one side only. 3M makes a double-stick foam tape I use on my helmet cam and I bought my last roll of it at Radio Shack. I use it in many applications and it has great adhesion.

As a senior rigger, I have indicated on the packing data card that I have inspected a canopy and found it in compliance with a SB that didn't appear on that record. That way (1) I'm not taking credit or blame for the legality of who performed the work, (2) I'm verifying that the SB was performed (by someone other than me), and (3) I'm verifying that the entire system is airworthy and taking responsibility for that fact. I don't see rigger on your profile so I wouldn't recommend writing anything on the packing data card other than personal information. I think that a rigger who inspects and packs it can note on the card that his/her inspection revealed that the SB had been completed. The anonymity of the rigger who performed the work will be obvious and needn't be emphasized in writing. That way, when you're checking in at a new DZ or boogie, it's a matter of record and nobody will have to unpack to find out if the reserve canopy is airworthy.

Roger that part about the dive flows, but you may want to do a little more than read. You'll be required to pass a minimum of 2 eval jumps. I'd suggest you make some practice jumps in which you perform as needed when your student loses altitude awareness. Common problems I observe with candidates: (1) failing to prepare for jump by briefing student for spot, weather, landing pattern, exit plan (2) failing to supervise student in aircraft for seatbelt, gear, etc. (3) failing to intervene during spotting or FF problems (4) failing to observe student canopy flight and landing (5) failure to meet student in landing area & provide post dive thereafter and (6) the greatest problem among my candidates has been the inability to give meaningful advice for common FF learning obstacles. It's not enough to say, "You did a front loop on exit." You must tell them why it happened and how to do it better. Studying will help, but practicing these skills is even better. Don't be intimidated--take charge of your evaluator when s/he poses as a student. your performance doesn't have to be perfect, and you're allowed minor mistakes. Ask the evaluators what they expect if they don't clearly tell you. As far as the written test, that should be open-book, but check and make sure. That means it helps if you know how to read the SIM & IRM to find answers. Good luck & kick ass

Nowhere in this thread have I read a suggestion that the FAA has given permission to use base rigs for skydiving. The only assertion I've read (or written) is that those who insist that this is currently an FAR violation are mistaken. The USPA published an incident report of the CO fatality in which they stated that the single canopy skydive was in itself an FAR violation. Ironic that the folks who were supposed to represent skydivers and "help" the FAA rewrite this section allowed this prohibition to be totally omitted, hence the ambiguity. This omission was a huge mistake and nobody seems to want to admit it. What troubles me more is that there are some of us who seem to support (even enjoy) the concept that the FAA needn't put their regulations in writing. The whole purpose of written law is so the public can clearly define what is or is not allowed. Do you really want to give it up that easily?

Please quote the FAR that specifies this.

We all know what they expect, I'm merely pointing out that this "expectation" has been totally deleted from the FARs during the last 105 rulemaking session. I suggest that the USPA write the requirement into BSRs if they are going to enforce it. And as far as what the USPA did enforce (or the FAA for that matter), please note that I've never suggested there was anything inappropriate about disciplining dangerous acts. edited to add: It would be an assumption to assert that it is illegal to do something that is not prohibited in the FARs.

No, your lengthy qoute simply says that part 91 addresses parachutes carried for emergency use and part 105 addresses pretty much everything else (skydiving). So read all of part 105 & quote the section that prohibits making a skydive w/ a base rig. Others have tried & failed. Thanks.

Have you been reading PIA Forum posts regarding this issue? I have already come to this same conclusion, although it's not a popular one. The FAA may be able to bully the aviating public into compliance with non-existant regulations, but what about our USPA? I have read for years about how involved the USPA has been in proposed rulemaking, and now a blunder of this magnitude got past everyone. Worse yet, the base rig issue isn't addressed in BSR's either, so the USPA can't call it a violation of these. Of course, the BOD has the discretion to discipline any member for a dangerous act, even if no violation was involved. IMO, enforcing it's own regulations is an appropriate responsibility of the USPA BOD. If I'd have them do anything different, it would be to identify which violation received what disciplinary action. This is more relevant to me than the names. I probably don't know these people anyway and they will have to deal with this issue next time they check in at a boogie or apply for work at a DZ. If they can find a place to jump or work that doesn't require membership, that is beyond the scope of the USPA.

Because: 1) You didn't give up. 2) You saved your own life. 3) You're still skydiving. Having said that, I can't resist the opportunity to emphisize to those with less experience that an unstable deployment is better than no deployment at all. I've seen a number of unstable deployments that ended with an open canopy and safe landing. If there's anything worth saying here it's, "Don't spend the rest of your life trying to get stable." Not directed towards you personally, but for any newbies that need to be reminded. Safe skies!

We mortals (not S&TAs) seem to get our magazines a few days later. When mine arrives, I'll be very curious to see if Parachutist elaborates on the reason for disciplinary action, or if we'll have to read the "inside" story in Skydiving Magazine. Inquiring minds want to know! (What our BOD is up to, that is).

IMO you're a winner!

You're a true survivor & that's a great story! Thanks for posting it. edited to add: I hope that most of us would agree that at some point, it's better to have the main come out while you're on your back than not at all.

My favorite all-time excuse was, "If we had one, none of our lazy skydivers would show up." Of course, those skydivers were all trained by that DZ & co-incidentally never developed an interest in safety. As you acquire more experience in the sport, maybe you'll be in a position to influence (read "volunteer for") this type of activity someday. It's hard to do anything without management support though. BTW: Ours went pretty well; made me proud.

I'd call that about 5 buck's (our overseas readers can do the exchange rate) worth of good advice . I think that others have explained this issue well enough that I don't need to repeat why I choose to jump a pull-out. I agree that almost anything can happen, and I'm not gonna be the one to say that a horseshoe can't result from a premature pull-out opening, but let's see if anybody has actually experienced or witnessed one.

The only time I've personally witnessed a pull-out container open prematurely, the PC pulled the pud loose & resulted in a good main deployment (at 12000'). A gotta think that a horseshoe would be a very unlikely result because the PC (even dancing on the edge of the burble) creates so much more drag than the strength of the pud attachment. How bad would a pilot chute have to be to not create enough drag? If the Velcro (elastic, or whatever) was that strong, I'd be afraid I couldn't pull it myself. Obviously any system has to be maintained. Has anyone personally witnessed a horseshoe on a pull-out system, or are we stretching the imagination here?

Interesting to note that PD doesn't list fabric strength as a factor in choosing F-111 or ZP for a main PC, even though they have published this as their reason to use F-111 exclusively for reserves. I'm gonna keep using ZP for a main PC. Thanks for the info.

Underwear should be that good! That does require a good machine.

I haven't sewn any underwear, but when I was practicing for my practical test, I made alot of F111 patches with E thread on one of these. Portability factor can be handy, too. Obviously need a bigger machine also.

Your interest in gaining better understanding tells me otherwise. Please share this information (or any other) with us as it becomes available. Thanks, S49

I'm gettin "weary" of reading, but the velcro/less debate might be a good start of another thread. BTW, as much as I hate velcro, I've had pretty good lifespan of control lines even with the velcro-type toggles. I think that lines w/ a better quality of resin-coating are less degraded by hook-side. But again, maybe another thread...

Finally, a mfr is quoted. This seems like a logical reason. I like that answer because it tends to validate the use of ZP PCs by those of us who mfr or maintain our own equipment. My PC's lifespan is limited by the mesh. Kill line & bridle are easy to replace. Thanks for posting this Mike! S49