ufk22

[url]http://www.pbase.com/sonex293/image/47115141 Don't forget about Dougy.... Not a dedicated jump plane, but was our lift for the ND state record jump (ok, a 17 way, but done with a few low time jumpers( 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.

Otherwise known as becoming an adult..... 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.

Which brings me to my next set of questions. I'm not an S&TA or a BOD member. Do I have a responsibility to report something like that if I have knowledge of it? If so, does that responsibility come from being a USPA member or from having a USPA instructional rating? If not, who is responsible for reporting such things? While I may or may not be thinking of a particular incidence, that really has no bearing on my questions. I'm curious about what kind of "discipline" has happened in past and how evenly or unevenly those instances are handled (ie is every offender punished in the same way). If you have to ask.......... If what your concerned about is personal liability, as a jumper, you should know whether this is wrong, as an experienced jumper, you should really know, as a USPA rating holder, you must have (during your rating course) proven that you know. What you do with this knowledge is up to you. To me, a better question might be "how would you deal with this if the student had been your child"? 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.

Far as I know, the stamp is not required. 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.

These 8 deaths are not unconfirmed. The AAD's all show firing at 750+/- and the reserve didn't work. No excuses. All 8 of them can't be hapenstance. Maybe we should be discussing this on the forum "Reasons not to buy an AAD". All the AADs involved in the 8 deaths did was fink on the rig. BTW: Don't even think about burble as some of them were unstable.THe TSO doesn't allow for burble anyway it requires a 300 foot opening after activation. Additionally, most of them occured with the main closed. QuotePerhaps a more appropriate question would be "If USPA had evidence, but not totally conclusive evidence, that the design of the Racer (or any other rigs) or an AAD (of any brand or brands) had potentially contributed to the deaths of 8 skydivers, should this information be posted on the net or released without 100% verification"?????? 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.

Congrats... Based on common wisdom of today, time to buy a very small, highly loaded elipticle canopy and get into swooping. Seriously, a milestone achieved. 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 trust my S&TA, instructors etc. They have told me I will be okay with this canopy. QuoteLet's see here; 140 jumps=about 40 jumps/year under a very HP canopy loaded at about 1.5. I wouldn't trust anyone who gave out this kind of advice. Are these the same people who's advice you don't seem to trust when it comes to "what to do if you go low and lose site of the formation"? Or is it that they just never told you what to do in that situation? Another potential "spot on the tarmac". 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.

An extra 2 years to realize he's not invulnerable and actually does make mistakes. Actually, it takes longer than the extra 2 years. Most people I know in the sport spend at least 5 years before they figure out what they don't know. Took me that long for sure, maybe longer. It's called judgement. Course, there are some that. after 20 years, have still never been wrong. But that's another thread.... 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.

Is your profile correct? Under 100 jumps and a Nitron ? This is not a canopy for for someone with under 500 jumps, especially doing less than 50 jumps/year. Did someone (Bueler, bueler,anyone....??) actually recommend this canopy to you? If so, they should be shot. If you made this decision on your own, it was the wrong decision. Set this canopy aside for a few years (or sell it) and get a canopy that is appropriate for you (non-elliptical, wing loaded at 1/1 for your ideal weight, cause you won't lose as much weight as you think) and learn to fly 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.

As opposed to a really "smart" mistake??? All mistakes are really dumb in hindsight. I've seen and caught, while climbing to altitude; misrouted 3 ring on a riggers rig, misrouted chest strap, popped main pin, AAD not turned on. All are pretty stupid?? No, the point of the report is what we look at but don't see. If you go at it with the attitude that these are just "stupid" mistakes, it implies that "I don't need to worry about this happening to me because I'm not stupid." A statement that shows either ignorance or stupidity. 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.

If cost is a major factor, find a Static line/Cessna/club drop zone. If you want to come up to Fargo, ND, you can go through our program and get to 30 jumps for about $1500 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 an attitude like this, you have no place in this sport. I think everyone owes beer (myself included) 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.

"protect privacy " ? what a crock of shit...from what ? credit card theives ? I pisses me off to no extent when i hear that pussy arguement...... I have no issue's with Stratostar what so ever, i am reacting to your comment only,,,i never understood those that do hide behind that statement...... Stand up guys like Billvon and DSE don't ever seem to whine like that ...i never understood why at minimum one can't include region of jumping, years, jumps and first name Quote Which is all you list. No last name, no e-mail, no address, city, or home dz. What's up with that??????? Trying to protect your privacy????? Or are you just, how would you say it, a "pussy"???? 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, I wasn't clear on whether you or davelepka was making the "shouldn't be able to test out" argument. With all the different quotes and replies, I think I may have confused your 2 points of view.reply] I've been a full-time professional educator for over 35 years. I do know something about courses, teaching and testing.[/reply This explains your bias (sorry, a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist), but to my 1st point; have you ever (especially since the introduction of the ISP, definitely post introduction of the old BIC) taken any USPA instructional courses? What you seem to think "testing out" means is not what it takes to challenge a USPA ratings course. Passing the written test is the smallest part of it. The biggest part is the teaching and evaluation of student performance, and it must be done following a defined format using clearly defined techniques. If you were to take a rating course from me, I would presume that I didn't have to teach you how to teach (positive vs. negative reinforcement, time management, lesson plans, braking down a topic into teachable portions, etc) and would certainly allow you to "test out" of this portion of the class. If I did have to teach you this, that wouldn't say a lot for your 35 years of experience. Your point seems to be that you, as a professional educator, should have to listen to me spend the better part of a day explaining basic educational theory to someone like you. To me, this would be a waste of time for both of us. 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.

kallend Don't see any instructional rating in your profile, so my assumption is you hold no USPA ratings. Testing out of a coach or I course isn't just taking a written test. The candidate must also teach all the same sections, do the same equipments checks and debriefs, and pass all the same eval jumps as any other candidate. They must do this demonstrating the same teaching techniques and practices that are taught in the course. If someone can do all this, I see no need for them to sit through the extra 2 days that would be involved in the classroom portion just so I or some other IE can demonstrate what they have proven they already know. I've conducted or assisted with over 20 USPA ratings courses over the years (coach, instructor and even the old BIC). If your experience running ratings courses is other than what's in your profile, I apologize and would be more than willing to listen to your personal views and experiences. If not, please explain what (other than your own bias) you're basing your argument on???? 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 fact that someone who really understands what this canopy is capable of told you not to fly it and you resented his "attitude" tells me that you probably will be another dark spot at some DZ someday. TOUGH LOVE.....????? Tough love, with a dash of dickhead. OK, just took time to read the rest of the thread. Sorry to pile on, just have seen to many low-time "overskilled" guys hurt themselves (or worse). p.s. I usually use more than a "dash"...... 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, Calvin, look at this from my point of view. You walk up to me and ask how to pack a very high performance canopy, telling me you have 500 jumps and don't swoop. 1. Low jump numbers for the canopy 2. Don't swoop 3. DON'T KNOW HOW TO PACK IT!!!!! Forgive me, but most everything you've said shows a level of ignorance that I can't ignore. Just the fact that you don't swoop tells me that you shouldn't be jumping this canopy. After all the incident reports I've seen over the years, the phrase "He/she is normally a very conservative canopy pilot" show up in a lot of landing deaths. A person that doesn't swoop is far more likely to get into trouble when in a tighter corner than they planned and then making a radical manuver to get out. NOT being a swooper actually increases your chances of killing yourself under this type of canopy. The recovery arc on a Velocity is very long. In a situation that your stelletto will plane out of, the Velocity will not. The fact that there have been over 50 replies to your post should show you that a lot of people ARE concerned over your safety and that your opinions about jumpers attitudes may be mis-directed. The fact that someone who really understands what this canopy is capable of told you not to fly it and you resented his "attitude" tells me that you probably will be another dark spot at some DZ someday. TOUGH LOVE.....????? 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 a copy of a letter I sent to Tom Noonan, USPA Director, after reading his report about changes to the AFF requirements. PLEASE keep comments S/L, we don't need another fight about whether AFF is better or worse or if we need an AFF JM rating. Tom I'm a long time jumper (20 years) who came up through S/L training. I'm currently jumping at a S/L dropzone in Fargo, ND, having trained and jumped for 15 years at a different S/L DZ in southern Minnesota. Both DZs train approximately 200 S/L student per year and do about the same number of tandems. Both are "club" DZs, where no one makes much money training students, but do it to try and keep new jumpers coming into the sport. Neither DZ has been able to implement the AFF program because of staff numbers and costs to prospective students. I'm a coach-E and S/L I-E. I'm writing to you after reading your posts at DZ.com. I'm not trying to start a AFF vs S/L or IAD discussion. As long as these programs all continue to effective train students and bring new people into our sport, I think it benifits all of us to make each program as safe and as efficient as possible. My concern/issue would be to get the Jumpmaster rating reinstated for S/L and IAD, especially in conjunction with raising the coach rating requirements to 200 jumps. I've conducted 4 coach courses over the last 4 years, with pass rates of about 60%. All but 1 who didn't pass my course failed because they didn't have the flying skills. 100 jumps just isn't enough for most people to have developed the ability to fly and remember enough about what went on in the dive to give an effective evaluation. If the candidate has been mostly freeflying, they probably can't do it with 200-300 jumps. While I do believe that a 200 jump minimum for coaching is more realistic, I could not support this change by itself. Small DZ's are understaffed to start with, and taking the most enthusiastic candidates out of the mix would create a severe hardship, but bringing back the Jumpmaster rating for S/L and AID would be the best of both worlds. I know USPA wants a one size fits most type of progression, but the S/L or IAD program is differerent than AFF or AFP, and has different staffing needs. The main workload with students at this type of DZ isn't making coach dives with progressing students (only 30 % make a second jump, maybe 10% go on to freefall, and less than 2% continue on after that) or teaching the first jump course, which normally number 6-14 students and happen on 2 or 3 Saturdays a month. It's having the staff to get the 1st jump students and those returning for their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th jump on static line out of the airplane. Under the old Jumpmaster system, this could be done by someone with 100 jumps and a JM rating. Now, it must be done by someone with 200 jumps and an I rating. Think 3-5 Cessna loads of 1st jump students on each class day, each load proceeded by gear-ups and practice climb-outs, plus another 2-5 loads of returning students to make additional S/L dives. Consider the workload with 2 Instructors and 2 Coaches present that day. One Instructor must do the gear-up (coaches aren't considered qualified for S/L), work with the the students on exits, body position and practice rip cord pulls (method specific, coaches don't qualify), must then load the plane and go up with 3 students, put them out on 3 separate passes (we don't have more than 1 student in the air at a time because of radio instructions and the possibility of confusion), jump (or ride the plane down if you don't want to delay things by having to pack your rig), debrief and fill out log books. The second Instructor has a little time to work with the next load of students if he/she doesn't have to pack, but only for a short while because he/she is needed at the landing area to run radio and talk down the students. What can the coaches do? Nothing. If instead of 2 coaches we have 2 jumpmasters, 1 Instructor can always be available to do student training while the airplane is flying with one jumpmaster, the second jumpmaster is able to gear up students and work with them on their exits and the second Instructor can deal with the radio. Consider the current USPA line of thought; with 100 jumps, someone can be considered competent to teach freefall skills and fly with a student, but must have 200 jumps to be considered competent to handle a static line exit. This seems counter-intuitive. To be a jumpmaster, a person doesn't need to be a great belly flyer and shouldn't need to have an I rating. They need to be able to do a thorough gear check, give the student a good spot, and safely get the student out of and off the airplane, while remembering details of the climbout and 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.

OK, one last shot to take this up to the top. Over 200 views, not one response. Anyone older? Bueler.....? Bueler.........? Anyone??????? 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.

There is an alternative to adding wieghts or changing your body position, and his name is "Ponce". Never heard anyone complaining about floating out of his skydives. But seriously, suggesting you should learn to fly without weights is like suggesting the big guys should learn to fly with skin-tight jumpsuits. It's possible, but why????? Adding some weight fill not only make yor dives more enjoyable, it will increase your learning curve by allowing to fly in a "comfortable range" rather than being on the ragged edge. I'm 5'11", 195, and getting a jumpsuit that slowed me down a little at about 50 jumps suddenly made me twice the flyer I had been. In terms of getting down after a funnel, 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 DZO doesn't care about "fun jumpers" and refers to us as a roll oh nickles because that is all he makes on a fun jumper out of a Caravan. . My first thought, go somewhere else, but.... I know the former owners of a small, turbine drop zone that closed a couple of years ago. They had great tandem business, but lost their fun-jumpers for the same reasons you mentioned. Based on what they figured out after the fact, they closed in spite of the fact that their tandem business was great. They just couldn't fill the rest of the plane with fun jumpers. so if you want an arguement to make to your management, let them chew on this. An empty slot on an airplane is like an empty hotel room. It has value only until today. If your DZ turbine is 2/3 full with tandem and video, every extra jumper added to the load is almost 100% profit. The extra fuel used to haul 4 more jumpers to altitiude is negligible. So if he really believes that "roll o nickles" crap, he's an idiot. 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 went through this with a club. Turned into a tandem factory, because a few people (that did most of the tandems) decided that the only thing that mattered was the money. The "fun" jumpers fought back for a while, then got tired of it. I tried to stay out of either camp, but things got to the point that my last year+ there I didn't do a single 4-way jump. 5 years earier, there would be 2-cessna formation loads almost every weekend. My only advice would be to move on. I did. I have to drive a little further, but now am at a DZ where I still teach and work with students, but also get a lot of fun jumps. This place has actually decided to limit the number of tandem jumps and focus more on student developement and fun jumping. I was not enjoying skydiving at the old DZ, I feel great about the new 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.

Out in Eloy last week. Took my son (23) and my father (92) along for intro flights while I got 10 minutes in my new jumpsuit, just working out how it flies. Both flew very solid for 1st timers. After, we were told that my dad was the oldest flyer anyone knew of at Skyventure Arizona. Just wondering, has anyone older flown in any of the skyventure tunnels? 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. No waiver from USPA. To waiver a rule would imply that the rule must make sense for most people, therefore why not for all? 2. Remove the age restriction and allow DZ's to make this decision. I will not teach or JM/coach anyone under 18, which is the legal age of consent at our DZ, nor will any other Instructors. If I was living in a state with 19 as age of consent, I wouldn't take anyone under 19. Mike Mullen's kids had tons of underage jumps and did just fine. This can/should be decided by individual DZ's. To have a reg like this and either waiver it or pretent it wasn't happening (Mullens) seems foolish and actually leaving USPA open to charges of negligence. USPA could "recommend" all jumpers be of legal age, outside of the BSR's, and allow this to be decided on an individual basis. As for tandem manufacturers, they're still free to set whatever policy they want. 3. Leave the waiver requirement in 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.

People screw up all the time. That's life. The hardest part of this sport when you're low time is figuring out if you screw up or someone else did. Alot of people point fingers to cover their own mistakes. But, assuming one of these guys did make a mistake, so what. I jump with a mix of experience/skill levels all the time. Being more experienced, that should put the pressure on ME to design a dive that allows people with a lower experience/skill level to be successful. And when thing go to shit, it lets me do the kind of flying i would never do on a "good" skydive, like back-sliding 100' to offer a leg grip, or making a turn using my ankle for a pivot point to end up where I need to be. 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.