tdog

FYI The chances are pretty darn good this is either the exact same hardware, or to the same mil spec as the hardware infinity uses: http://djassociates.thomasnet.com/category/black-hardware So, you could always buy a cheap part and kick it around the dirt and sidewalk for a while, soak it in water, etc, to see how well it will last.

My BASE rig has it... 4+ years old. Happy!

How many other houses were those workers building at the exact same time as yours? That is kind of illustrates the point... Not enough resources to be nimble enough to meet customer's expectations of reasonable delivery time. Either the workers are overworked, the factory is not big enough to hire more staff, or the assembly line process cycle takes too long for every station, or they don't want to risk "ramping up" more staff in case of an economic downturn. Sure, one person can hang drywall in only one house at a time. But a fully staffed contractor can hang drywall in 300 houses at the same time with enough crew members.

If you want "commercial grade radios" - I like these: http://www.motorola.com/Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/Two-Way+Radios+and+Pagers+-+Business/Portable+Radios/On-site+Communications/BPR40_US-EN We have about 30 in my business and my employees abuse them 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. They just work and work and work. Yet they are cheap enough to throw away when they fail, whereas the next model up is 3X the cost. At my home DZ, we put the more expensive radio by motorola on the student's cheststrap in a custom sewn case. I know some people that mount radios to helmets, but I wonder, if a GoPro is a snag hazard for a student, would not a radio be the same? I would love a blue tooth speaker that could be mounted in the helmet that would connect to the radio... But then again, it would be just one more thing to fail.

Mind going further into detail? Note - my rig is 8 years old, but I purchased it new at the time. Some of these things have been fixed in newer rigs. Issues: 1) The tuck-tab main pin cover stiffener needed replacing. 2) No matter how hard I try to take bulk out of the ears of the reserve, the main riser covers will never stay shut. 3) The fabric tabs that cover the risers on the side of the reserve tray are never flat, no matter how hard I try to put them in the rig to "get a memory". They slide out and have a bit of a hump, which is not aesthetically pretty. 3) I have had to replace binding tape and stitching in areas more than once. The stitching started unraveling early on as if it was not locked at the end of the stitch. 4) I have the "lightning bolt" design and the red and black fabric never lined up between seams and tabs. It is 1/4" off here and there thus it does not look as cool as it should. 5) The rig lacks padding, thus is like wearing plywood. I know they added this in recent years, but they were not cutting edge on comfort. 6) The serial number tag stitching was off at time of manufacturing, so part of the tag pulled out of the stitching and started to fray. 7) The main hacky handle showed wear much earlier than expected. 8) My first set of risers were built incorrectly, such that the toggle would stick in the brake line on deployment and require two hands to release the line from the toggle. After a few jumps I contacted the factory and they sent me a new set of toggles admitting they had a new person who placed the bar tacks in the wrong spot, and missed it in quality control. They were awesome to admit fault and fix it free of charge, but I had 30 jumps at the time and was confused why I kept having malfunctions. 9) My rig was delivered two weeks later than the quoted date. Note - you can say, "well that is an older rig" or "all rigs have wear and tear" or "maintenance is always required." However, as I said in my first post, I have twice as many jumps on my Mirage as my Vector and it looks brand new and has had zero maintenance and I never have had to try to pack it a special way so that tuck tabs will stay closed, etc. All that being said, the new Vectors are damn fine rigs too, but because I like the Mirage so much, I would not wait 6 months for a Vector when I could have a Mirage in 1.5. I would wait if the quality was much better, but I think the quality is the same or worse, so why wait?

I have a Vector and I have a Mirage... Mirage is quoting 6-8 weeks. I would say - buy a Mirage. Both UPT and Mirage are great rigs, but I think the delivery time for the Mirage, plus some of the "fit and finish" quality issues, makes Mirage my favorite rig. My current Mirage rig has over 1000 jumps on it and people says it looks brand new. I honestly love it, and I can't say the same about my Vector with a list of issues I dislike about it...

My first year as an AFF-I. During the first coffee break of a FJC - a student asked me, "is AFF more or less dangerous than tandem"... This said to me she was worried, especially with her tone of voice and mannerisms. At the next break she said, "I have extreme stress induced epilepsy." I turned my head to the side like a curious dog when you ask him "wanna go outside" - making sure I heard what she said correctly. Before I could get out a single word, she looked at me and said, "I know this means I could have a seizure, and if that happens in freefall and I don't pull, I could die under a canopy I cannot control..." She listed about every way she could die. Then she said, "But I will have this for the rest of my life, my medication is dialed in as good as I can get it, and I want to skydive, so I have no choice to accept the risk. I rather accept the risk than say years from now I regret not trying new things." We pondered all day... She already appeared to be the "nervous nonathletic uncoordinated student" that would do poorly... We came up with a plan. "Congratulations, we offer you a free video." The 3rd person was another AFFI, who would fly in front of her, and tell us if we needed to pull at any time by watching her face. And, he also was, should the situation become very unstable, able to help stabilize the student at pull time. We got to altitude. She CRAWLED to the door full of the most nervous "walk" I ever have seen. She is my only student ever that has crawled to the door... But we stayed calm. She had stress induced epilepsy afterall. We did a go around telling her to take her time... She climbed out. Gave a few exit counts. Maybe 10. I thought, "maybe we should have said no." Then we jumped. AND SHE ROCKED IT. One of the best level 1s ever. The second we left she immediately was comfortable. She stood up her landing near the target. And... Stuck around for the boogie party that night as if she was an expert skydiver making friends with everyone. Then she disappeared forever....

I think actually, if the manufacture simply put paper seals it in the instructions, then it would be A-OK for the FAA per the logic process laid out in item 4. 4. B. says: (a rigger) shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer’s maintenance manual 4. C. says: (a rigger shall) seal the pack with his seal in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation for that type of parachute 4. D. says: When the manufacturer has not provided concise guidance, the Administrator provides guidance in FAA-H-8083-17, Parachute Rigger Handbook, as an acceptable method of sealing the parachute. I am surprised that item 5 "Action" is conflicting with the logic laid out in 4... 5 says that lead seals must be used, but gives no provisions for when a manufacture gives conflicting guidance as per 4B and 4C. Thus, if a manufacture provided "concise guidance" that bubble gum was an appropriate seal, it would overrule the "Administrator's guidance", as the logic in 4 puts the manufacture as the first source for info, the handbook as the 2nd when the first is silent.

If you are having fun, go to the dz when you can. Jump when you can. Have fun. Don't worry about it. You need to jump every 30 days to stay current and not need recurrency training. Jumping one weekend a month is not bad.

I witnessed one of my best friends die under a perfectly good canopy, and I have witnessed a few others that were "just friends". I can tell you what it looks like to see the impact... So I honestly want a change for the better. It seems the BOD, or at least you, have officially said instructors are not qualified to teach canopy control skills... What I am curious about... Has the BOD put together a matrix of the incidents - how they occurred, etc? Before you claim the majority of the instructors are not qualified, do you have any proof that instructor's lack of skills are a cause of the problem at hand? Swooping accidents are killing people, but these are people with 1000+ jumps, and the coaching that might save a life is not going to be "fixed" by any USPA syllabus, in the same way the USPA could not write a syllabus that would teach a 4 way team to turn points like Airspeed - it takes highly personalized coaching, hundreds of jumps with coaching - and even then - it is the coaches that seem to die too, or people under the mentoring of world class coaches. (if you ignore the occasional guy with mad skillz that everyone tells to stop, and he ignores everyone). Canopy collisions are an issue, but then again, the last one that killed someone I knew, was my 4way coach years ago from Perris, someone who would have been qualified to teach basic canopy flight by any one's standards. Someone with all the ratings and world champion trophies. The other canopy collision that killed a friend - both parties in the collision had many jumps, decades of experience, and it occurred right after deployment. But, I witnessed someone die at Skydive AZ, with less than 500 jumps, due to a collision, so I think this is something we can work on collectively. So, I am thinking here - how can I be part of the solution... And the sad part is, I honestly don't think this program is going to make a big dent in the funeral count as it is currently written - because it is the D licence jumpers that die the most. Should it be thrown away... No... I can see injury count going down as the long spot drills and braked turn drills will help people with reasonably loaded canopies, not break their leg avoiding a powerline. And maybe it will save a funeral here and there, so it is worth it... But - I would like to see a matrix that breaks down all the canopy related injury/fatality statistics - that identifies how (if) the USPA training can address each category. Until this is done (and maybe it already has) - the training program is not focused on the proclaimed goal of saving lives.

Para, I understand the concept that an instructor might need to be proven before teaching. However, the new card requires an s&ta to sign each student. In years past my instructor rating expired, as it needs an s&ta signature yearly, for over a month because no one was around to sign it. The s&ta was out of town, or working off site. My app was sitting unsigned for weeks. The RD has never been to out dz that I know of during his term, so he would not even know who would and would not be qualified to be an S&ta. Thankfully we now have a good one, but this is new, and I am not confident if he moved away again we would get a replacement. Not every dz has an s&ta hanging around the students. That is my problem. Instructors with endorsement should have power to sign. Maybe the s&ta grants that endorsement. Some non uspa dropzones also have uspa students and instructors, but no s&ta, unless an at large rep travels there.

I agree... However I also think that the S&TA is a broken concept full of political appointments, etc. In the business world, 3rd party testing agencies certify people to have proper skills, that, do not have a financial incentive. The FAA endorses pilots. The USPA endorses instructors. DZOs and politically elected individuals endorse S&TAs. I rather see instructors (even if it is just a whole new type of instructor with no freefall teaching skills, but canopy skills) earn a rating to teach. It would give a lot of credibility to the program and process and get everyone, not just a select few appointees, involved.

Being that one of my best friends, and a fellow instructor who was once my coach and someone I respected a lot when I was learning - both died last year due to canopy incidents - I can tell you I support your efforts 100%... It was a sad year. Now back on topic. I don't understand the logic of S&TAs signing off. It seems like the wrong answer to a real problem. S&TAs are politically appointed members of the establishment. I looked up a few random dropzones and found often it is the DZO. For example, in my home state, every DZO is a S&TA - or director of the military program at the military base. A S&TA faced with challenges of making a profit, can, if they choose, turn the new B licence program into a profit center and force their customers to attend a for-profit course. As a business owner, I understand the need for profit, but saving lives are so much more important. This needs to be a grass roots, gorrila marketing, solution, not part of the establishment. More instructors, not less, should be encouraged to help students. More conversations, not less, should occur. Limiting the program to S&TAs actually, in my opinion, isolates this program from the daily conversations that could or should occur between skydivers. There are no requirements for an S&TA to have any knowledge of anything... Here is exactly what the USPA says about S&TAs: By contrast, instructors are tested for their ability to teach and knowledge prior to earning ratings. They work every day (or just on weekends) with students. Sometimes they are equally part of the "political system", by making money from a DZO, following the DZO's policies, but sometimes they are retired from working at the DZ, but still are mentors to many. This kind of offends me. If the USPA is worried that instructors are not serious about teaching, they seem to forget instructors are faced with life or death teaching experiences every day. 50 jumps before it is time to teach someone how not to die under canopy, we have to teach our students how to pull and deal with malfunctions. There is absolutely no way any student, instructor or skydiver can do this. The appointments are part of a political system. Perhaps you are suggesting the public can vote out the regional director and hope the new RD would appoint a new S&TA - but that takes years. And even then, the DZO chooses the S&TA, the regional director can only approve the candidate. Solutions? Maybe limit the signatures to AFF, SL, IAD instructors (not tandem). Make instructors apply for an "endorsement" to sign the card - and just add it into the existing computer system as another instructor type. There are solutions... P.S. I started this post to say that I support your mission because I have lost friends. Would this program have saved their lives? I am confident not. One friend died while being under the direct coaching of a world class canopy competitor. The other was one of the most experienced canopy pilots in our region. Both hit the ground "in the corner." Both had D licences and thousand(s) of jumps. I have seen other incidents first hand, and it has become clear to me the USPA can do very little to prevent swooping incidents. However, the braked turns and canopy collisions are an area where USPA coaching can help. Once someone starts doing high performance landings, it becomes very personal and very individual, and I can't see any standardized program helping.

Considering the only S&TA I know at our DZ is a member at large, and is a Tandem instructor doing back to backs all day, the requirement to have an S&TA sign it is foolish and stupid. He will never be in the landing area helping or have time to coach or instruct. I think the DZO is an S&TA, but he is never in the landing area and does not teach. He has a lot of other legitimate things to do, such as run a business. I think there is another TM who is the DZ S&TA, at least he told me he was about an year ago, but he also is only at the DZ when doing tandems... The S&TA concept is not "endorsed" by all DZOs/DZs. Some use them a lot - others rely on instructors, staff, mentors and others to help with safety. The S&TA concept is a tough conflict of interest... I had a DZO (not my home DZ) tell me once, "I own this business, not the USPA. I will be the one sued if someone gets hurt, not the USPA. So when it comes to safety, I run the ship, my rules, my policy, my enforcement, not the USPA. Therefore the S&TA is useless." Instructors (AFF) are the ones that work with students every day. AFF instructors can be on loads and can be asked by other jumpers, "hey, watch my landing, I am getting this signed off." They are the ones in the landing area looking up every load. The USPA, in effort to actually get students to LEARN should consider who the resources are that can help TEACH. An S&TA is not the right tool for every DZ.

See this thread for info about UV wear: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3131726#3131726 I remember another study I read too, but I can't find it. Basically the bright vivid colors, like Orange, fail quickly. Rich colors such as black, and even red, last longer. There are two issues... Color fade, and strength. This posts shows that 4 colors of the florescent variety failed strength tests.

At risk of sounding arrogant, I disagree 100%. Here is why: Who cares about D licences? No one really, except DZOs and S&TAs who are setting rules for difficult landing conditions with a group of unknown skydivers, such as at a boogie where they have "specialty jumps" or "off DZ jumps" or "beach landing jumps". I have seen very few jumps limited to D licence holders, but every time, it was due to the landing being very difficult. Thus the only thing important is canopy proficiency. You only have two canopy related things on your list, PRO rating and CRW. Further, if you look at incidents resulting in fatalities, D licence holders top the list of people who die. If you read the ways they die, canopy control is the low hanging fruit. 4pt VRW and being at a competiton won't save lives, focusing on canopy coaching will. Most of the things that I have read in this thread are great accomplishments, such as VRW, RW, 50 ways, etc. These are things that give skydivers ego boosts and old-skolers would put patches on their jumpsuit to brag. But they do not answer the needs of S&TAs or DZOs have when they analyze a tough jump and need to know the people can land safely. Generally, freefall is the same no matter where you jump, unless it is a highly specialized north pole or high altitude jump where everyone on the jump will be known personally by the organizer and licences won't matter. Likewise, no one asks people on invite only jumps, such as 100 way head downs, or 400 way RW, "what licence do you have?" By then your skills are known by the organizers and no one will care if you have an A or D. So the D licence as a tool towards safety needs to be mostly focused on canopy control. I think the PRO landing requirements would be a good example of a requirement for a D licence. Or maybe proof of continuing education in canopy control including X hours of classroom and X number of coached canopy jumps. Forget the freefall.

If so, then: 1) I will need to buy an intentional cutaway rig to rent to a lot of candidates to make money. 2) I would have needed to pack a lot differently for my first 2000 jumps because my first legitimate cutaway in a typical skydiving rig was around 2000 jumps... (I had a non-skydiving malfunction on a base canopy packed in a skydiving rig at around 1000 jumps that would not have happened but for the base canopy)

The OP had a valid question. If everything goes to crap and 1, 2, 3 random points are hooked up and 1, 2, or 3 are not - what do you do. This thread quickly got off target. What are the solutions in freefall? Under canopy? What are the best and worse case scenarios? I was impressed when a TI told me that every year he goes back to an tandem examiner for a "refresher". He said, there is always something to learn. I asked what they learned in 2011, and he talked about "what happens if you snag your video guy in your drogue". How do you cut him away? Not to take this thread on that tangent, but these "what ifs" seem to be best thought of before it actually happens, and this thread had the possibility of going that direction... So what are the solutions? (Note, I am an AFFI, not a TI, but being a rigger and instructor I am both curious and intrigued, and am very familiar with the tandem gear.)

It looks like, in the photo, the soft link shown has a ring as the tab. I will go on the record again to say that I think any soft link with a loop/ring/keychain/etc as the "tab" is prone to a hard to see rigging error. In inspection of a rig I had a canopy fall off in my hands because the person who hooked it up put the loop end thru the ring then around the ring - instead of thru the link then around the ring. Under tension - it almost looked correct and was hard to spot. Under slack, it fell apart. There is a simple solution - at no added cost. Use a cypres washer as the tab, or some other solid object, like a dime, with a hole drilled in it. The solid material, as found on the PD Slinks, makes it impossible to put the loop "thru the ring". I believe PD has a patent on the fabric tab, but do they prohibit a cypres washer to be used? Oh, BTW - it was a reserve that fell off in my hands on inspection. I have posted about it before, a few years back, with photos, if you want to search.

Before your next jump - tell your instructors your problem, and ask for time to focus on this issue. I don't know what your issues are, but the most common are: 1) Looking down while landing. You can't run when looking down. Try it without a parachute. SOLUTION: at 100 feet remind yourself, say it outloud, "look to the horizon, look to the horizon." 2) Not flaring at the right altitude. To practice, find a staircase and walk up about 10 steps and look out to the horizon... Work with your instructors. 3) Not flaring evenly, or raising one or both hands after flaring. Bottom line - you need to communicate with your instructors you need/want help.

I woke up feeling better finally - so no more jokes needed for me to keep me happy. Have a wonderful friday!

So far, so good, even with the bathroom joke. hehehe.

That works.

1) Because the country did not work hard for it. 2) Because it is his money, he was taxed all along the way. 3) BECAUSE THE RICHEST normally give the most to charities and benefit the most people without government help. Small and Big time examples: Rockefeller, Getty, Ahmanson, Kent Logan, Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak. Look to most college campuses for buildings named after people who gave their estate. How about cancer funding? We don't need the government to tax the rich for their fortune because their fortune will help us all. 4) Because the rich make jobs for everyone else. If everyone was an employee, and there were no entrepreneurs, our society would crash. 5) 4 above expanded - because anyone can be rich if they want to. A lot of the richest people earned all of it, just as anyone else can. 6) Because family owned businesses often are trampled by estate taxes. The estate value often includes equipment, cash flow, accounts receivable, and other things, such as "blue sky" and "business value" the business owns that is not cash in the bank. To pay the taxes, money has to be found. Jobs can be lost... When it is handed from generation to generation, the next generation has to take out loans, or sell the business, to pay the estate taxes. Businesses that are publicly traded don't have this problem. Estate taxes unfairly punish small business. Small businesses employ about 50% of all workers and have generated 65% of the net new jobs over the last 17 years. Should I go on?

I have been sick in bed for two days. Food poisoning from a blended beverage I purchased yesterday... I am sick of being in bed. Here is your opportunity to tell me something funny... The more random the thought, the better. No food/vomit/bathroom jokes please. hehehe