ufk22

I can understand PD being concerned about someone without a riggers ticket packing for others, potential corporate liability. I was refering to his training videos, but it's all the same. Unfortuneately, if USPA codifies the canopy instructor rating, you may have to stop teaching for the same reason, potential personal liability. I know skydive U still has their course, but who would let even the MOST qualified person work with students with only the Skydive U training and no USPA rating? Why? Not because the rating makes a better coach, but potential liability. 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.

Do you think I should be allowed to continue? Quote Only if you're willing to give up a couple of weekends and a few hundred $'s for the rating courses and some $'s to USPA for the ratings. Having just spent well over $1000 (course fees, air travel, car rental, etc) to KEEP (not to get) my coach-E and I-E ratings, it only seems fair. Seriously, you're one of the best organizers I've jumed with because of your ability to teach. The idea of you having to get USPA rated seems rather foolish, but that's not to say it won't happen. And maybe Nick should have some kind of rating before he's allowed to do packing videos.... 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.

With a C-206, for S/L the best answer is... Put the pilot in the right seat, install a top-hinged door on the left side, install a step. We did this years ago and it allowed great S/L exits. Exiting the cargo door is great for tandems, sucks for S/L. The only other tip is keep the excess S/L in your hand and be ready to short-line an unstable exit. 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.

Just looking for a little more info on this one. Were you on your back spinning or were you tumbling? The actions (and directions given you) of your instructor vs what you're telling us have me puzzled. The "bring one arm across" is to get from back-to-earth over on to your belly, when the arm must be re-extended. It works if one is stuck on his back, somewhat stable on the back. If you were tumbling it would just make you less stable. Why did she deploy you so high while you were on your back? Did you lose her when you started to spin? 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.

12 jumps? As was said, talk to a local instructor, but.... Can you fall straight down (it's much harder than you think, but this is the underlying skill to do any kind of relative work)? Can you move forward, backward, sideways? Can you adjust your fall rate? Can you track effectively? Any of this requires someone else in the air with you. Are you jumping with a coach or another student? Lastly, forget about freeflying until you can belly-fly. This will take about 100 jumps. lastly, don't listen to advice given over the internet. 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.

Whoa, Slow down with the lynching fellas. To quote your original post "In my opinion there is a problem and it is our obligation to try to address it. I am a believer of post A license continuing canopy education. Possibly at the C or D license level. One issue that must be addressed, if we decide to go that route is what will the sylabus contain and who will be authorized to teach it or sign off on it. Whether it is in the form of a canopy class or license requirement, USPA; if they are going to require continuing canopy education, will have to approve of the material and person or company administering it. Basically, Who can teach it?" If your desire is truly to "educate yourself", please consider what is being said. It's hard to see the value in what others are saying while defending one's position. I've been an instructor in this sport for almost 20 years and have been helping with and running rating courses for almost 15 years. I'm a current I-E and Coach -E. I've done more free "coach" or training jumps than I can count. I'm not saying things were better 20 years ago. The ISP has been one of the best things that ever happened to this sport, but the "professionalizing" of the sport also has it down side. It gets more expensive to get and keep instructional ratings every year. As this cost grows, I see fewer and fewer people getting ratings or spending their time and jumps to help bring low-time jumps along, unless they get paid. I also see a lot of A license jumpers that have been pushed through, getting free-fall training but little or none of the rest of the ISP material because their instructors or coaches were more interested in making a little more money than spending the time necessary to cover all the material. In reference to Canopy instruction; it has been discussed on the USPA Blog, DZ.com in many threads including this one, at the S&T committee, and at the last AFF standardization meeting. I would say everyone is just trying to get as much information as possible before suggesting anything. Isn't that our job? Your last line was what is called "setting up a straw dog". Suggesting that the alternatives are either a new USPA program or nothing creates a "false set of choices". There is currently nothing required, but to suggest there is nothing offered is not correct. There are many good canopy courses, crw seminars, and many good wingsuit instructional programs. Leaving out "bond fire discussions, S&TA lectures, or even instructor oversight because that is not offered everywhere"also seems foolish. The fact is that these things are happening at a lot of good DZ's. They are more common (at least from what I've seen) at smaller DZ's, but this is offset by the ability of larger DZ's to afford to bring in outside programs for canopy control, CRW and other things. Listen, I am not opening a shit storm here, just wondering some thoughts. If this is what you consider a "shit storm", just wait. This is by and large a pretty civil discussion. Remember this year coming, if similar to last year, 70% of the fatalities could be canopy related. That means some of our friends could perish; if everyone is so knowledgeable then how do we at least attempt to reduce that number. Unfortunately, some of our friends WILL perish. It is the nature of the sport. No one needs to swoop. No one needs to fly a canopy loaded at over 1.5-1. No one needs to skydive. But we do it. Some of us need more adrenaline than others. We can talk to people, help educate them, try to convince them to make good decisions, but mistakes will happen. 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 Feb BOD meeting is approaching and if we do our due diligence we can hit the ground running and save some time. I do question why so much (at least by your report) of the time spent at an AFF Standardization meeting was spent discussing advanced canopy coaching, rather than reinforcing the basic canopy skills that are (or should be) taught during AFF and immediately after (by coaches who often don't have enough jumps to have developed anything more than basic canopy skills at best). In my opinion there is a problem and it is our obligation to try to address it. Stop and think about this for a while before you take action. There is a problem, but doing "something" just so we can feel good about "doing something" isn't the answer. Want to end swoop deaths? OUTLAW hook turns. It is the only way to keep people from making mistakes doing them. Limit turns to no more than 90's. Want to end canopy collisions? OUTLAW 2 canopies within 200 yards of each other. Is any of this realistic? Obviously not. But neither is thinking more canopy education is going to solve this. It might help on the margins, but it won't solve the problem. It's our nature as skydivers. 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.

Ya, pretty much what dave said, but.... "Disrespect on the other hand can be earned." Also, what you just said.... Maybe if you were the FIRST fool, everyone would be easier on you..... Old saying, "there's ignorance and then there's stupidity" Ignorance can be fixed.... 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.

Best advice I can give; Land 50-100 feet downwind of a windsock or wind blade, or something else that is about 10' high. focus on this and start your flare when your feet are just above at at the height of the top of the blade. Not only does this give you a reference, it helps keep your eyes up rather than looking down. 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've got a number of low-wing jumps (mostly Pipers, but not all, even a V-tail Beech). If exiting solo, put the right seat all the way back and kind of kneel on it facing backwards, open door and set your left foot out on the wing far enough to hold the door, then roll out and down. Make sure the pilot has the nose low and uses some rudder to ease opening the door. For 2-way, 1st out steps out with right foot, facing forward, left foot onto step, right foot trailing and get low, 2nd facing back as in solo exit. Spotting is actually easy if you know the area well, impossible if you don'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.

Since you have video, please post 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.

I will go ahead and tell you that I know him and he is very experienced and has all instructor ratings. He is also a rigger. I am saying nothing either way but letting you know the facts because your assumptions are wrong. It's not about the ratings, it's about the attitude and the knowledge. It you let attitude overrule knowledge (assuming something here, ratings don't mean knowledge. I know an "I" with 30 years experience who still teaches the "stick out an arm and push" technique when teaching students to turn) 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, remember that the comment that started this was by someone who had issues with a particular DZ. Second, he's posting anonamously. Third, he obviously has no background or knowledge as an Instructor to make such a claim, especially when the situation he was refering to sounded a lot like one brake not released rather than a spinning malfunction. Last, as a coach-E and an I-E, I would never recommend (well, almost never I suppose) using the phrase cut-away on the radio. 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.

Maybe you've failed to notice that one is very simple mechanics while the other is a fairly complex process. If you have so much to say about it, Robin...why not come up with a course/program/syllabus and work to get it adopted? Doesn't need to be inventend, the program is called STATIC LINE/IAD PROGRESSION. Sorry, I realize that this is no longer cool, better to go AFF and then require another course to learn to fly your 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.

Unfortunately, everyone I've known who died under a good canopy had very high jump numbers, very current. 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.

Wouldn't 140 kts= about 155 mph rather than 185??? Might be wrong, but I thought the 727 at Quincy had an exit speed of about 160-165 kts, which would be about 185MPH 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 me, arguing against audibles is kind of like arguing against AAD's. Nothing wrong with using an audible at any jump number as long as you use it right. Don't set it at breakoff or deployment altitude, set it at "save your life" altitude. Set it for 2500'. If you hear it and you're not under canopy, one shot at your main (rather than two), then deploy your reserve. If you make it to 50 jumps without hearing it in freefall, set it up 1000". If you make it to 100 jumps without hearing it before deployment, use it normally. 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.

My opinion on the matter is even if what you say is nontraditional, unless it is wrong, you should not only be able to, but to want to defend it. Being wrong has never seemed to stop anyone on this site. Just got screamed at (all bold type) by a guy the other day. He hasn't jumped in 20 years, but still knew everything about the sport based on his last skydiving years. 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'd say you just proved my point. Loved the "all bold" by the way. And another quote from above; "Sorry if my honesty offends you." 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. I would also like to add that if I was looking for a coach, and was going to pay for it, I would want someone with more jumps/experience than I have. I'd like a canopy piloting coach with several thousand jumps... a wingsuit coach with a thousand ws jumps, etc. Even as uncurrent as I am, I'd be hard to listen to a person with fewer jumps than I have and a coach rating for anything other than maybe the first few jumps upon my return to the sport. And those would have to be "free" so the new coach could get experience coaching while I'm knocking the dust off. (Yes, I fully admit that's ego. But it's the truth.) What makes you think anyone would want to try to help out someone with that kind of attitude even if they're paid, let alone for free? Just go out on your own, you know how it's done, and rely on those freefall winds to take off that dust. P.S Don't hurry back My my, aren't your panties in a bunch! Sorry if my honesty offends you. Oh wait, no I'm not. I may not have a lot of jumps. Only 525 right now, but I don't think it demonstrates a bad attitude to want someone with more experience than I for a coach. Especially if I'm going to be paying for it!! Skydiving has doubled in price since I last jumped. And I'm gonna make damn sure that if I'm paying for two that I get premiere instruction from a highly experienced individual with a solid reputation. Maybe that means I have to drive down to Spaceland for canopy piloting or Deland or Eloy for two weeks of RW training... whatever. But I sure as hell am not gonna pay a 100 jump wonder at a local cessna dz. That ain't gonna happen. Ya know what else ain't gonna happen? I ain't gonna jump with you. Not even if you paid ME! I'm not going to pay you, even though I realize that I might need some practice, so relax about that one. I've only been a coach-E and an I-E for 2 or 3 years, with about 20 years of instructing before that. My point was; USPA recommends that as a D-license skydiver not having made a jump in 6 months that you "jump under the supervision of a USPA instructional rating holder (coach or Instructor) until you can demonstrate the ability to be safe. Anyone I've signed off on as a coach has more than enough ability to do that, and they should be paid for it. Once they get the rating, they don't need unpaid practice jumps. If you've been out of the sport for more than a year, you should go through complete training and E-P drills, all of which can be taught by a coach (and that coach certainly deserves to be paid). Anyone who's been through my coach course, even if they only have 100 jumps, has demonstrated the ability to do all of this. If jump prices have doubled since you last jumped, that tells me you've been out of the sport for many years. The jumpers I've seen come back after that kind of long layoff that have your attitude have generally been a danger to themselves and to those around them. "No, I won't sit through a first jump course", "No, I won't do a clear and pull, I'll just do a little RW", and of course the ever popular "I'd be hard to listen to a person with fewer jumps than I have and a coach rating for anything other than maybe the first few jumps upon my return to the sport. And those would have to be "free". I've heard it all. Those that come back realizing what they need to do to get current, considering everything that has changed in the sport over the years, are a joy. To quote from above "Flying off the handle like that before having all the facts is just dumb." 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. I would also like to add that if I was looking for a coach, and was going to pay for it, I would want someone with more jumps/experience than I have. I'd like a canopy piloting coach with several thousand jumps... a wingsuit coach with a thousand ws jumps, etc. Even as uncurrent as I am, I'd be hard to listen to a person with fewer jumps than I have and a coach rating for anything other than maybe the first few jumps upon my return to the sport. And those would have to be "free" so the new coach could get experience coaching while I'm knocking the dust off. (Yes, I fully admit that's ego. But it's the truth.) What makes you think anyone would want to try to help out someone with that kind of attitude even if they're paid, let alone for free? Just go out on your own, you know how it's done, and rely on those freefall winds to take off that dust. P.S Don't hurry back 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.

Ummm... If ya got two in now you're only three away from the 10grand H&P! What comes next is your instructor rating! [;) That's the way it was back in the 80's 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 think some of the dives I was on with "Ponce" back in the WFFC days were falling about 40MPH!!! 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 I would recommend; First jump course, not sit through, but as a participant. A little extra EP procedure review in the harness At least 1 prcp, if training S/L At least 1 full altitude recurency jump, maybe more. 1st one for stability and altitude awareness, probably at least 1 more that resembled an A-licnce check dive. EP review prior to EACH jump, then again after the next 5-10 jumps, assuming a short time frame. If the next jumps get spread out, EP review the next 3 or 4 times you come out to 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.

We were (almost) all wonder boys in our day. It seems quaint now, but I remember when I bought a 225' 7 cell canopy (wingloaded at about .8) with a little over 50 jumps. "You'll kill yourself under that little thing" was what I was told by the old boys. Then I got a 195 Monarch at 200 jumps (wingload about 1/1) and was talked to again. Anyone who thinks these "new newbs" are any different than we were has a failing memory or just can't see their own "excuse for every fuckup and a rationalization for ignoring guidelines that many of our friends died to establish." I'm not saying that we should let them go, as I've said a few INSENSITIVE things to people over the years, just saying that this is all part of the normal state of life. Nothing new for this generation. 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.