ufk22

Skydive Fargo used a 206u this way many years ago. Pilot on the right side of the plane. Worked fine for SL. We didn't have a roll up rear door though. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Freeflyers wearing .... booties? I think you're on to something here. The next thing out there. I'm thinking of getting a new jumpsuit for RW. I've not needed booties and am comfortable not having them. But, the masses now jump booties. Tracking and seperation seem to be one area of advantage?? Tracking is only a small part of it. Faster turns, quicker swoops and faster stops, even a lot more range of speed in freefall. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I had the same problem with my Mamba when I fir start3ed using it. It's probably all about the placement. I have to adjust the side pad in my helmet each time I put it on to be sure it's in the right place. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Better than average, never repeated a student jump, but when I actually look back at my old log book, "not as good as I thought I was". This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

As has been stated, the harness length really has nothing to do with how tall you are. I'm 5'11", but have a 31" inseam, which means my torso is long. I need a 17 1/2" harness to be comfortable in a rig. I've bought a number of used rigs over the course of my skydiving, and from my experience a harness that is more than 1" too short will be very uncomfortable, assuming it isn't so small that the leg straps have to left completely loose (which to me would chnage the description from uncomfortable to not real safe). If you measure yourself to fill out a new gear order form or try on a few different rigs, you should be able to determine what size you need. Don't use student gear as a reference as most have ajustable main lift webs and are designed with a much wider range of use that regular skydiving containers. The one good thing is that most manufacturers harness size measurements are pretty comparable. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

A 12 year old Fury with 350 jumps is a worn out dinosaur of a canopy. It will be an earth seeking missile, will be much less responsive than the Nav you have been flying and will have a weak flare. You should be able to buy it for $200 , 1/3 less than the asking price. There's nothing wrong with making an offer lower than the asking price, as there is almost NO market for this canopy. On the other hand, this could be a real cheap canopy to get you jumping. You will learn a lot. Your spotting will be a lot more important because of the lack of glide. If you can learn to land this canopy well, you will be able to land almost anything, because the timing on your flare will be critical. Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with doing this as long as you know what you're getting. I paid $400 for ny first complete rig, got 100 jumps on it and sold it for what I paid. It kept me jumping. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

One drill dive for 2-way is what I call the "california bimbo" (don't ask). Use any exit your student wants to work on, then face off and; 2-way touch grip, I turn and they sidebody me, 2-way,they turn and I sidebody them,repeat sequence with oposite turns, 2-way, I turn and they cat on me, 2 way, they turn and I cat on them. The grips are all just touch and go. It is all infacing points until the cat on them and lets them work on turns, fall rate and holding their position while having enough challenge to be more than just a "drill dive". It seems to build a lot of confidence in the student as they can usually get through the entire sequence. How much I help out with fall rate or slide issues depends on the student, but usually I just make the initial adjustment in my fall rate to match them and let the rest of the dive flow on it's own so they have to do the flying. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

To answer your original question, I would go large rather than small. A 135 stiletto will perform just fine at 1.35. As someone else has sais, if you get it, park the pilot for 100 jumps, don't bounce back and forth. They are very different canopies. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

The one thing you didn't say was how you fly your canopy. If what you want is a swoop canopy, the Stiletto is old-school. It has a short recovery arc and puts you down low when starting a true swoop. If what you want is a great all-around canopy (ok, excluding crw) the Stiletto is a terriffic bargan. You can have fast-fun with turns, you can float it farther than almost any other canopy, it will do brake turns down low. The only thing to remember is how fast it responds to toggle input. A minor wrong hand movement while landing will have you turning summersaults. Coming out of deep brakes too fast will spin it up real quick. I've jumped a 150 loaded at 1,5 for many years. When I talked to a PD rep about a replacement canopy and told them what I wanted (no serious swooping, ability to get back from a long spot, ability to sink in flying slow if needed for tight demo, lots of fun to fly) their recommendation was to get another Stiletto. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

We use to wire the door open on a Van in Nebraska in the early 80s only we put 30 jumpers on board. Yeah stupid - I know. We came to believe that our assholes slamming shut actually created some suction to the floor and helped keep us from sliding out during rotation. . I remember that plane. I also remember riding at the back end of the ramp, door open and ramp down, my first boogie, my first turbine ride, wrapped in a sleeping bag, holding on to the seat belt with both hands under the bag (cool jumpers didn't wear seat belt) up to 1500'. And yes, rotation was very intense. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I'm not against using new technology, just saying that what you're talking about can also be accomplished with what is currently available. Ski - I just finished Private Pilot ground school last month at a Part 141 facility. I'm quite familiar with the FAA's process and we could stand to take a few notes from them. They offer options to get the training done. We don't. Getting back to the original question, any and all means of preparation prior to a rating course can be valuable, but I can't see ever being able to just do everything online. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I actually do expect anyone taking a rating course from me to have done everything you mention, just not in an online format. If you show up at a course and expect me to teach you everything that's already in the SIM and IRM, I'll need a week to do a coach or I course. I've seen I-E's that expect this, and those that don't. I've seen candidates show up with pretty much no prep time. They are the ones that "melt" or fail. If you were successful at your IERC, you must have had lesson plans for everything you needed to teach prepared in advance. You must have actually read the entire IRM more than once prior to the course. You must have known the relevant portions or the ISP for your discipline and most of the SIM prior to the course. or not???? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Actually learning how to fly on your belly before sit/head down/freefly. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Call precision aerodynamics........ This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I do single side AFF transition from s/l. I'm the only AFF rated I at our dz. even through USPA says I can do single side on the first cat C jump, I want 1 or preferably 2 successful self-deployments before I take them up. Coming from tandems, I would want 2 successful deployments by the student minimum. Also, I treat the first AFF jump more like a Cat B (stability in 10 secs, altitude awareness throughout the jump, two good practice touches, body position and heading control, self deployment, no release) rather than a true Cat C. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Call up Skydive Spaceland and I believe even Chicago Skydiving Center... If I recall correctly they both have a tandem progression that transitions them over to a single AFF-I to continue the progression. So far as transition training, there's a small blurb about it in the SIM on the Cat D intro under "Instructor: Transition Protocol" paragraph... But it doesn't seem to go into (anywhere I see at the moment) what training is required for that. However, the IRM does have a much better break down in the conversion requirements for the levels and even has a tandem progression from Cat A - H. The USPA system sort of worries me, as technically a T-I can oversee a student from their first jump to their A-License, but they're not trained for the freefall portions where the student isn't hooked up to them. No spin stops, rollovers, harness docks... none of it. The guidance is that the (non AFF rated instructor) seeing a student in danger does the same bottom end dance as a coach; turn burn and save themselves. Before anyone on here decides to chew my ass for not knowing what I'm talking about and not knowing what my ratings are valid for... I direct your attention to the USPA T-I proficiency card #16 as well as the IRM Tandem Instructor section. If you read the SIM, cat c training is the rub for a TI or single-side AFF. You can't do it. On the tandem side there is nothing in Cat C that you can do that will "clear the student for freefall". Also, in the BSRs (E-5-b). The AFP programs are not truly USPA programs, but rather are experimental or waivered. Once a student gets through Cat C, a tandem I can take him through D-H in the sl/iad progression. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

The proper technique is not to slow the canopy early. All this does is remove some of the speed that would better be available to convert into lift later. The best advice I could give is when landing a 9-cell ZP performance canopy (and yes, a Sabre 2 is a performance canopy) you need to think about your landing more like landing an airplane and less like flaring a student canopy. You need to (probably) start your flare a little higher and take just a little more time to get to the "2" position, hold the "2" position and let the canopy fly. If you flair at the proper height, the canopy should plane out into level flight a couple of feet above the ground while you hold the toggles at about your waist. Be patient, keep your feet off the ground and let some of the speed bleed off. Then, as you start to lose that last couple of feet of altitude, finish your flare. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity can't. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

But just a stamp on the card tells me nothing. I don't even know if the person who signed it has a current rating, let alone any rating, or if it was just filled out by the jumper themselves. Also, mistakes are made. I just dealt with one a couple of weeks age, an I-E signed off on a card for an Instructor rating but forgot to sign one line. This is just a papaerwork thing, the guy had done everything, but it happens. If presented w/a signed A card. I'd say a quick phone call will tell you more about the jumper's abilities. Yup, all the wuffo's think we all know each other. I actually DO know every skydiver in the world. Either by card or license, a certified instructor has aid the jumper meets the requirements. Are you saying you don't trust some of the instructors? Or, you just don't trust their penmanship? No, you don't have a clue. And I also know BS when I hear it, and most of what you are saying is BS. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Sorry, but you have no clue..... I'm an I and an I-E, and getting a license rather than having a card does matter for safety. If you have a real license, I can verify it at USPA website in a minute. If you have a signed card I have no way to be sure it's valid if I don't know the person who signed it. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Trained static line, 20 years S/L I, 7 years S/L I-E, also AFF-I. My opinion, especially having AFF babies show up post training and having watched a few AFF graduates do their hop & pops is that AFF underappreciates the "hard arch" and overstresses the "relaxed arch". I'm not saying that the jumper shouldn't relax in freefall to avoid the dreaded "chip", but the hard arch will keep a student belly to the relative wind and will get them back there very effectively. I've seen enough lazy, unstable exits from those trained AFF because they don't hold their arch long enough after exit. The altitude thing is entirely another matter. It's only normal for them, after being trained to pull high, to be nervous at what they consider to very low altitudes. That part goes to how well they are trained for the low altitude exits, and unfortunatly, a lot of AFF traing centers quit training once the big money stops flowing (not to say that doesn't happen at some small, S/L operations). This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Sounds like just another pissing contest, GA pilots that don't like the fact that someone else is really using "their" airport. Then make up a bunch of restrictive rules. What do you suppose would happen if the airport board decided that no aircraft could operate outside of those same restrictions? I would guess that Skydive op's are 90+ percent of the airports total traffic, maybe 95+% of TO and landings. When they get an airport board smart enough to realize what those additional numbers mean for federal funding for improvements, things will probably improve. Pretty common. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

When you know the answer...... "whuffo you jump out of a perfectly good airplane?" If you know the answer, you stop asking the question. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

First, read everything PD has to say about both canopies on their web site. Then call PD and tell them what you want. They'll have a lot better advice than what you'll get here. My personal view... The Katan is a dedicated swoop canopy. If that's what youwant, that's what to get. The Stiletto is a more all-around canopy, especially at 1.5 wing loading like you'll be at (and I'm at on my Stiletto). The Stiletto has longer glide in brakes, you can flat turn it down low and has a short recovery arc. As long as you don't try to do super-intense swoops (because of the short recovery, you need to start things down pretty low to really get the max out of the stiletto, so don't do that) it's a great canopy. The control response is quicker than most any other canopy, so you have to pay attention and not go too far. I swore I got hit by crosswind gusts every tenth landing until I realized that I was sometimes pulling down one toggle just a little more that the other. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Actually the application requires specifically that you've 'Received Instruction' in several areas...AND that those areas involving the use of specialized equipment, you demonstrate performance with it. So depending on how you define 'a class' it is debatable I guess...however the fact that 'instruction' is required isn't arguable. http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Form_PROProfCardapp_2010_11.pdf There is no requirement for a "class" and the instruction does not need to be done by someone with a USPA instructional rating. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.