ufk22

As for “regulating a specific discipline of already experienced jumpers” that is already being done. A “C” lic. Is required to compete at the nationals and to get a Pro rating you must complete a course taught by a USPA I. http://www.uspa.org/tabid/170/Default.aspx#986 Needing a C license is hardly the same thing as what is being proposed here, and NO, there is not a required class for getting a Pro rating, only jump accuracy verification and a test. 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.

Why does USPA need to be involved? >While I certainly see the value in good training for wingsuiting, I can also see the value >in the same type of training for CRW, swooping, big-way, etc. I cannot see a >REQUIREMENT for that type of training. CRW and big-way - agreed. The people actually organizing those dives are better ones to be the gatekeepers of training, since you can't do them on your own. Wingsuit and canopy flight - more of a problem. Anyone can buy a Velo 79 at 10 jumps and kill themselves, at which point they do not benefit much from additional instruction. (And may not even know it is needed or available until after it will no longer be any good to them.) And anyone can buy a CRW rig and start jumping it. And a lot of big-way organizers don't train. And a high percentage of swoop deaths are people who have tons of jumps and have been swooping for a long time. The idea that USPA needs to mandate advanced training of any kind goes against the nature of our organization, and if some people want to turn it into more of an FAA regulatory body I'll opt out. 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.

How about ... Let the manufacturers approve a course syllibus, require a USPA instructional rating with a manufacturer's endorsement to teach it, make it a recommendation rather than a requirement. USPA instructiontal ratings system is designed around teaching the basics of skydiving, nothing more. The ISP includes the basics of canopy flight (if the instrutor takes the time to teach this) needed for survival. Same thing with freefall, just the basics. While I certainly see the value in good training for wingsuiting, I can also see the value in the same type of training for CRW, swooping, big-way, etc. I cannot see a REQUIREMENT for that type of training. 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 did a tandem several weeks ago, loved it and wanted more, so I signed up for Tandem Progression training, and got 2 more tandems a couple weeks ago. They were great, learned alot, was cleared for AFF 2, and did that Sunday...I mentally rehearsed till I could do it in my sleep! I was totally stoked and feeling eager, ready, and a little bit cocky...my first solo jump! WOOT! On the ride up, my jumpmaster said."you have this one down cold, right? You know this jump front and back, got it all planned in your head, don't ya?" "Yeah, man, I'm ready to rock!" "Let me just tell you this...it will not go as you have it planned in your head!" Uhh, OK... [ reply] Just have to love that kind of positive reinforcemnt on the ride to altitude. The sign of a true professional. 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.

What you're talking about is so old school. It CAN'T be done, or maybe I should say it can't be done safely with any consistancy. If you have any assets at all, it's time to leave this DZ. If somethings happens, everyone will get sued. Putting out a student without a fuctioning AAD is NEGLEGENCE. No waiver will stand up in court. If this DZ is a USPA member, the board needs to take action. 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.

USPA requires a "steerable" reserve. Rounds do qualify. USPA also requires "a functional automatic activation device that meets the manufacturer’s recommended service schedule [FB] " The FB means it can be waivered by a vote of the full board of directors. 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.

Any reason why?? 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.

This is very wrong. As we have seen on youtube many times, a departing main canopy can and will snag some part of the reserve on the way out, turning two good canopies into zero good canopies. A two-out in a bi-plane or side by side is made up of two good canopies, and once they're out, if they haven't tangled, the chances are that they won't. An open canopy is a 'closed loop' from one riser, up to the canopy, and down to the other riser. There is no way to for them to tangle, just like if you had two rings, you cannot get them to intertwine. However, once you cutaway the main, you now have one ring (the reserve) and one 'string' (the main). It's easy to see how you could tie a string around a ring. Picture a bi-plane with the main in front. If you cutaway, the main lines, risers, toggles, and RSL hardward all will be dragged up and over the nose of the reserve, and I can't see that as being good. In terms of what the student needs to know about a two-out, there's a simple qualifier for a cutaway. Of course, the downplane is what needs to be cutaway as you can't land a downplane, so the rule for students can be as simple as 'if the canopies are touching, don't cutaway, if they are seperated, you can cutaway'. Even if the downplane isn't fully formed, any seperation of the two canopies will facilitate a 'clean' cutaway. I'm not saying I agree with what they're teaching, just that it's still happening in some places..... 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.

You're saying that the S/L students DON'T have active AADs for their first jump??? 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.

Used to be the most common cause of 2-out with static line was AAD misfire. The old ones would sometimes fire after a couple of turns. A lot less likely nowdays. If you want to know what to teach, first read the SIM and the IRM. Riggerrob pretty much covered that. You didn't say what the debate was. Was it... 1. Don't bother to teach it because it won't happen? or 2. Two different opinions on what to teach? I know of a DZ, SL operation with SOS student gear where the concensus among Instructors is still to teach always chop the main with 2-out. No qualifiers. Because it's simpler and easier and students "don't need to know any more than that". By the way, if those same instructors think it's OK for you to be jumping a Crossfire loaded at over 1.5 with 150 jumps, I'd question a lot of their opinions. 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.

At this stage of your skydiving, you are obviously too ignorant to realize how stupid you appear. Could this canopy have been landed? Probably, but landing on rears is not the easiest thing to do, especially with one brake partially set and the other released. Could the problem have been caught sooner? Possibly, but it wasn't. Did he "create" his own problem. Definitely, but we all can and will make mistakes. Did he fixate on the problem? No, he made a decision and executed it in a controlled manner. He made an "off DZ landing" in half brakes, then got up and walked away. That's sure not what we teach. As to your canopy selection and the advice of your "DZ Pros", I have no problem with that, "because you're a grown-ass man and can make your own decisions." OK, I take it back, you're NOT ignorant, at least not after all the advice you've been given on this forum. You're just stupid!! waste of time going any further with this one..... 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.

At this stage of your skydiving, you are obviously too ignorant to realize how stupid you appear. Could this canopy have been landed? Probably, but landing on rears is not the easiest thing to do, especially with one brake partially set and the other released. Could the problem have been caught sooner? Possibly, but it wasn't. Did he "create" his own problem. Definitely, but we all can and will make mistakes. Did he fixate on the problem? No, he made a decision and executed it in a controlled manner. He made an "off DZ landing" in half brakes, then got up and walked away. That's sure not what we teach. As to your canopy selection and the advice of your "DZ Pros", I have no problem with that, "because you're a grown-ass man and can make your own decisions." 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.

1. You didn't fail. You said practice pulls went well and you deployed only our own. You accomplished the most important objective on a cat A dive. A cat A dive is also about getting through the brain lock that everyone goes through. I do have to ask, where did you jump? Most DZs use radio to assist first jump students under canopy. 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 question is "do you currently hold any USPA instructional rating or any instructional rating from any recognised parachuting organization"? Having a tandem manufacturer rating only doesn't count. If the answer is no, then you would have to get the coach rating first. If you have non-USPA instructional rating, there is a procedure for converting them. Get an IRM or contact Jim Crouch at USPA to get the facts. 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 spent many years jumping a dive-rite suit (no longer made) and after a lot of research bought a Bev suit a couple of years ago that has fantastic range. It's the "comp" suit, pleated booties, s little extra fabric in the lower arms, nylon front (for fashon), with continuous swoop cords. The suit is all spandex under the arms and around the back, so I have "retractable" wings. It gives you the ability to go slow sithout wearing an old, baggy, poly-cotton suit. 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.

Making a skydive, even a tandem, is not an "experience". There is real potential for injury or death. If it isn't his idea, don't bother with it. There is a currrent thread about a tandem passenger who died, didn't really want to do it, but his wife talked him into trying it. Could you live with that???? 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.

While staying relaxed is very good advice when in stable freefall, it's not always the right answer. You went over on your back on exit. A "strong, harder arch" is sometimes best. A more aggressive arch with arms and legs more rigidly in position would have kept you more stable on exit, and would have gotten you out of your spin and belly to earth much faster. 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.

That'll be close enough, just remember to also adjust for the change in freefall time. You divide by 60 because 60 secs=1/60 of an hour. If your going out at 15k your freefall time is more like 75 seconds, so you would divide your average wind speed in MPH by 48 (3600 seconds in an hour/75 seconds of freefall=48=1/48 of an hour) With modern canopies, the spot is not near as critical as it once was, but I admire you for wanting to actually know what's going on and why rather than just being a "green light" skydiver. 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.

So what you're talking about would be like going on the "Skydive" ride at Disney World?????? No thanks. I spend a lot of time and effort encouraging safety and good decision making, especially when training new coaches and instructors. No one wants to see the sport become more dangerous, but what you're talking about isn't my sport. What you're talking about is a "no personal responsibility needed" experience. I already find the sport being sold that way too much today. As such, there is no choice in your poll that i can vote for. 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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How about this recovery?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET9jfZtcQsU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That video must be almost 10 years old. It was shot at skydive Hutchinson (long closed) and the tandem I has been out of the sport almost as long. Didn't say anything about that, just commenting on seeing a jumer I haven't see for a while at an old DZ I used to jump at. maybe you should re-read your tag line...... 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.

That video must be almost 10 years old. It was shot at skydive Hutchinson (long closed) and the tandem I has been out of the sport almost as long. 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.

IERC is the same course for any rating, not coach, AFF, or any rating specific. I would assist with at least one or two IRCs prior to taking the course. I would also try to assist with courses from more than one I-E to get a broader perspective. Everyone does it a little differently. The biggest thing I would tell you, same as I tell all the candidates prior to the courses I teach, is PREPARE. Read the I-E section of the IRM (if you had, you'd know it isn't rating specific). Write lesson plans for everything prior to the course. Running an effective coach or instructor course doesn't mean reading the IRM to your candidates. Practice. Also, don't go into this with the attitude that everything you know or have been taught or the way things are done at your DZ are right. There is very little that I do or teach that is the same as I was taught. The person I took the IERC from is no longer doing it. I didn't take it from her, but two I-Es I know gave very high recommendations for Jen Sharp. 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.

OK, per the SIM, Cat E, page 70 in mine. Get surface winds and winds aloft, 3k, 6, 9k, 12k, in mph and head degree. Add the surface and 3k numbers together, devide by 2 to get the average wind speed and average wind direction for canopy flight. Assume average canopy ride of 3 minutes=1/20th of an hour. 1/20th of the average wind MPH=distance upwind from target (at opposite heading of the average of the two wind headings) on opening.This is where you want to end up after freefall is over. To go from there to the exit point, add and average wind velocities (and headings) in mph at 3, 6, 9, and 12K. Divide the average speed by 60 (assuming 1 minute of freefall) and this will give you the distance in miles you will drift in freefall at the average of the wind headings. Take the opening spot, move the distance you got for drift in the opposite direction of the average wind direction, and you have the exit point. The answer to most beginners skydiving questions are in the SIM. It's even a FREE download. 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.

Without any tracking number, there is no proof the item was shipped. As a side note, if it was insured with a tracking number, only the shipper can file a claim. The "gave it to a friend of his"analogy" does not apply. How about if you gave it to a friend of yours to deliver? 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 am not making this up! I have tried it, and it works. Of course there will be a point where nothing is going to get you to penetrate the wind. That's the time to be on the ground! With a few exceptions the rule is: Tailwind - get small and use brakes. Headwind - get small and use rears. This is quite simply wrong, and is a common misconception. Can someone who we respect around here as a canopy coach (Ian, AggieDave) chime in? It is no wonder new jumpers are getting confused about canopy flight when there is some much misinformation around. I half expect someone to say "You should get big with a tailwind to act as a sail"!! Yes, with advice like thiis it IS no wonder that noobs get confused. The way to deal with a situation where you are flying into the wind and getting pushed backward is to INCREASE the forward speed of your canopy. Pulling rears SLOWS the forward speed of your canopy. Pulling front risers will INCREASEE the forward speed of your canopy, although you'll give up altitude faster in exchange for speed. Using rears to fight a headwiind is simply WRONG. As to spiraling down, it's not uncommon for winds above 3000' to be blowing much faster than surface winds. Where I jump we often see a big drop below 500', but a noticeable drop below 3000'. Assuming surface winds below 20mph, spiraling down quickly out of the higher winds at higher altitudes (especially if you are open at 5000') will often help. This is the same reason that RW groups get more drift from winds in freefall than head-down groups, less time exposed. If the winds are steady from the surface all the way up, then spiralling won't help. 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.