firemedic

Not against night jumps. Just the requirement to make them.

Cause its dark out there! First, I am not against making night jumps. If you are ok with the risks of night skydives then by all means go for it. I am against requiring night jumps for anyone other than those who want to make intentional night jumps. Example: Night Demos My reasoning for not requiring night jumps. Greatly limited visibility/depth perception in freefall with others. Much more difficult to judge distance and closing speeds. Greatly limited visibility/depth perception under canopy for the same reasons as freefall. Greatly limited visibility/depth perception for landing. Obstacles, off field landings under a main or a reserve are much more dangerous.

Wasn't familiar with the acronym, but i am now. We won't tell... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(fetishism) You will tell! Your Blufing

OK, OK...you don't have to yell! I misread your intent...sorry. Your example is what USPA uses to justify the night jump requirement for D-license and I agree with what you said about it being BS...I've been saying that all along with the caveat that you may be on that sunset load, decide it's too dark for you and then have the pilot yell, "Get the hell off my airplane!" Now you're stuck with no night jump training. The requirement would be better served at an earlier stage in one's progression, IMHO. How's that for a reason for requiring night jump training? (In a normal conversational volume and tone) I don't accept that reasoning. The load should not even be taking off without knowing it can be completed during daytime, or "Normal" jump conditions. No justification to require night jumps for those who do not choose to make them.

You're missing the point... __________________________________________________ The point is not missed. The point is there are those who insist that requiring night jumps is a good idea. I haven't seen any valid reasoning for it. I've read hear that it would be good if you push a sunset jump and end up making a night jump. That's not a justification for requiring night jumps, it's a lack of judgment on the part of the part of all participants who willing put themselves in that position. There's nobody holding a gun to your head making you do a night demo. Ergo, it's elective, not required. For those who want a pro rating and do night demos, Make night jumps a requirement to the pro rating. 2 night jumps at some point in ones career does not equate to proficiency further down the road. Proficiency comes with regular practice. And so it does. There's more to it than "proficiency". That's only for bragging rights. There's a more important reason - safety. Which leads us to the need to have night jump training at an earlier stage in the developmental process. I agree that safety is the primary objective. If you want to assure safety then don't allow that sunset load to leave the ground if there is not enough time for everyone to be on the ground before its dark. Pushing the envelope and being in the air unprepared (no night jump briefing, no skydivers wearing the appropriate equipment and the landing area adequately lighted) is an unsafe act in itself. So you are saying maintain the status quo with no logical reason for doing so other than "that's the way it is." Again, you've missed the point. On top of that, were it up to me, I would seriously consider a requirement to raise the jump numbers for B license to 100 jumps...or more. And, since most people, apparently, see a need for night jump training because they may be forced to jump in after-sunset conditions, then it might be a good idea to have that night jump training as a requirement for the B-license. How they are confusing twilight with night, I don't know. But there you have it. In all fairness to USPA though, the SIM does mention, -"Every skydiver, regardless of experience, should participate in night-jump training..." -"Skydivers participating in night jumping should meet all the requirements for a USPA B or higher license." But then again, they make no mention of how to handle off-landings at night.

If the jump is past legal sunset, and they do not have the required lighting, the jumps are illegal. The Meet Director is asking teams to make illegal jumps? That is troubling. It certainly is.

I think there is a lot of good in having more experienced/better trained skydivers, even if they don't want that training or experience. ________________________________________________ Edit to add: Reply to BV Having better trained and more experienced skydivers? Absolutely. Edit: It should be training that is purposeful and needed, not wanted or unwanted. Canopy Piloting has been brought up here as an area of need. Too many getting hurt and killed under good canopies. That why I said we should create an E license. 500 and 2 night jumps is not a Master anymore. Put multidisciplinary stuff in E and call that Master. D is needed for national competition, but night jumps are not not really related to that. It is time to modernize our licensing structure to reflect what has happened to the sport. __________________________________________________ I think this cuts to the heart of the issue. Our sport has evolved greatly. Let the requirements evolve with them. For those who want to do night CRW, ok require night jumps. Night Demos, ditto. For daytime competition, Nah. If you like jumping at night by all means go for it. Just don't see requiring it for the sake of requiring it.

I agree that proficiency in canopy piloting is the foremost skill we need to improve. I would support requiring night jumps for the pro rating only. Or, perhaps have night demo as an endorsement to the Pro Rating. The only way I could see night jumps improving safety and creating meaningful experience is to have a re-currency requirement for night jumps. Experience and skill comes only through regular practice. I'm not proposing that, and I don't think anyone would want that. I just don't believe that 2 jumps will build an adequate level of experience or safety. To you or me it may not be adequate and I would base my opinion on the hind sight gained in experience of several hundred night jumps, mostly Demo's. But some experience is better than no experience. I think we should keep it as is, BUT emphasize them being done as soon as possible, just like a canopy control class. Matt I understand your position. You have a lot of experience with night skydives and demos and you are coming from your perspective. I respect that. From my perspective and from some skydivers I've spoken with about this issue, we don't see any legitimate benefit in being required to make a couple night jumps when we do not want to. We did it because we could not get a D with out them. I would like to see them required only for those who want to make night demos and other than that be totally voluntary.

God I love that movie.

I agree that proficiency in canopy piloting is the foremost skill we need to improve. I would support requiring night jumps for the pro rating only. Or, perhaps have night demo as an endorsement to the Pro Rating. The only way I could see night jumps improving safety and creating meaningful experience is to have a re-currency requirement for night jumps. Experience and skill comes only through regular practice. I'm not proposing that, and I don't think anyone would want that. I just don't believe that 2 jumps will build an adequate level of experience or safety.

So, my post right above you inferring having experience in a night jump so as to not be inexperienced for that "Oh Shit it's dark now" jump is not good enough? It is far better than "Cause I had too". But I say leave it in. If you want a D License make the night jumps. You only need a night jump for Recognition and Tandem's at the moment, and the BOD will waive it for "Tandems Only" according to a previous post. And like, you have not read a good argument to keep them, Matt Please re read my statement. I did not say not to have night jumps. I said "I did not see a legitimate reason REQUIRING nights jumps serve" The mandatory night jump for the guy or gal with 350 jumps that ends up on that "Oh shit its dark now" skydive is meaningless if they haven't done one yet. You stated above, "I have not read a good argument NOT to do them. Other than the "I don't want to do them crowd". Here's the answer. You only need a night jump for Recognition and Tandem's at the moment, and the BOD will waive it for "Tandems Only" according to a previous post. Ok the BOD will waver them for Tandems. That leaves only "Recognition", I presuming you're reference is for the the D license requirement. I do not believe that is a legitimate reason to mandate taking the risks associated with making a night jump in order to obtain a D license. If we are going to require night jumps so that people are prepared for those unintentional ones, then why not require them much earlier . Why not for the B or C. Chances are pretty great that somewhere between 50 and 500 jumps someone will find themselves in that unplanned for night jump. Don't get me wrong, I am not against night jumps. I've done my required ones and more than one unplanned. I thought the freefall was awesome. The landings.......not so much. Edit to add: Seems to me the only reason is, "because I had to"

In all this debate no one has clearly stated what legitimate purpose requiring night jumps serve. Edit: I can't identify any.

You are knocked out and a AAD cuts your reserve closing loop for you and you land in a pit of man eating alligators and you are not wearing gator repellant. What do you do? I'd love to hear it.

Of course not. Just like you can't guarantee that you won't have a fatal double mal, or that some toggle-whippin' idiot won't kill you under canopy, or that you won't screw up and do something idiotic yourself. Unless you don't jump, I guess... Even if you're not jumping. Some idiot without an AAD is going to get knocked out and crash through the roof and kill you.

I just want to fix what is broken first. If, after establishing that we have gear that meets the specs, we are still left with cases where an extra second would have made a difference, then by all means, let's look at that too. Dang it. Every time I have a sensible post, you beat me to it. Some are already blaming activation altitude when, in fact, we don't know that yet, do we? Can anyone point to incidents that the AAD did NOT activate when the parameters were met? Now compare that number to how many times it DID. Always keep in mind tat what happens after activation is independent. If I'm correct this thread is inspired by Bill Booths proposed raising the min opening altitude so AAD firing could be raised as well. His stated reason was that AADs were firing but PC hesitations, or some other misc condition delayed the deployment resulting in impact under a partially deployed reserve. If we are going to fix this problem lets get back on track and help identify the cause(s) that reserves are not fully deploying in time after an aad activation.

I was referring to your post #18. As an I/E seeing the license is part of my duty in running the Course, so I would see a "Tandem Only" restriction of there was one. Yes, you would see that restriction if it existed. For someone with night blindness You would most likely see "Night Blindness,or Valid for Daylight Hours Only"

I have never seen a "Tandem Only" "D" License. As an I/E I would be curious to how this plays out. Matt I doubt you ever will see one either because Licenses and instructional ratings are two entirely different things. It's been a couple years since that discussion, but as I recall, a written waiver is submitted to the BOD and if approved the license would be issued and notated to reflect the nature of the waiver. In other words if the waiver was for Night Blindness the D license would be notated to reflect that. This waiver would have no direct bearing toward and instructional rating since all instructional jumps, including Tandems, must take place during daylight hours.

So, if after a few years of Tandems, you decide to go for and AFF-I Rating you will need to do the 2 Night Jumps first? Matt I did my night jumps. I was just giving the OP some more info from a discussion I'd had.

>I would like those who are adamantly against this to propose a better solution. Keep it like it is and use an AAD as a last ditch backup instead of an alternate method of deployment. Since many AAD's are adjustable, each person can decide on their own. Status Quo

___________________________________________________ I agree There have been some that have impacted the ground before their canopy had time to fully deploy and it sounds as if this may be one as well. I believe that raising the AAD activation altitude another 250' is reasonable and called for. I would like those who are adamantly against this to propose a better solution. So far all I hear is why this is a bad idea, status quo blah blah blah.

Edit to add: So by saying this you infer its understandable. Lets call it retribution for the above mentioned killed by Israel say..... 18months ago. This infers you condone perpetuation of violence. Am I wrong. EDIT: You need to fill out your profile so we know who you really are. Stand up for your beliefs and don't hide behind a pseudo.

I got my tandem rating through Jay Stokes. He said that Night Blindness or only going to do Tandems are legit reasons for a waver. It takes BOD approval so you need to apply for it well in advance of your Tandem Rating Course so you'll have the D in hand.

I'd bet this logic will work up til an Argus is due for a 4-year. I sent one in to Chutingstar for calibration, and it was a very quick and easy process. Once the Calibration centers cease to exist, then what? I figure I will continue to use mine (I have a Jumpshack rig) but the calibration is due here next repack ~ I fear I will have a doorstop then. Hopefully Mike will still be able to take care of yours and others. But, like you said. If Argus goes down there will be a lot of doorstops out there. It is probably obvious but I think this is but the tip of the S*&T storm to come.

However, if Aviacom is no longer providing instructions for maintenance, does that mean a U.S. rigger can no longer pack any rig with an Argus? Mark Good question. I'm thinking I can keep packing reserves if the reserve is packed in accordance with the mfgs. instructions. I have the Argus manual in PDF as well. On the other hand, the majority of rigs I pack with an Argus have withdrawn their approval for Argus so the issue may be moot.

Sorry for your troubles. I got my rating from Strong in Jan 2010. I received it about 30 days after sending in the paperwork. 30 days seemed a bit long but I only called them once when I hadn't heard anything the first 3 weeks. Now its posted here maybe the word will get out and they'll get on it.