chrismgtis

I got to see the practice at Skydive Carolina and saw all the dudes up close :) They parked a big Goodyear blimp on the DZ too. Neat, but I didn't have a camera that day. Grr. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

You better not drop that beer! At least attach a pilot chute to it first. Haha. Theres a game for you. Beer accuracy. Hell yes. "Operation Beer Drop" Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

I keep hearing this nebulous "Education" over and over. You can Train and Educate some people till you are blue in the face. It will not change a thing. Some people will NOT learn. Yet, not educating yourself is just plain stupid and there is no excuse. Any amount of education is better than none. We should still be educating ourselves and others, regardless of whether some just don't care what they are taught. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

rofl Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

Poster: You just got a great response from the CEO himself, asking you to let him know if your issues is not resolved. You just received the BEST customer service ever. CEO's don't personally tell people they are sorry for their experience. The most they might do is have an employee send out some "I'm sorry" standard templated letter. So, if that doesn't change your opinion about Aerodyne, nothing will cause customer service isn't going to get much better than that. That is as long as they remain true to their word and turn the drawn out issue into a more quickly resolved one, which I'm sure they will. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

This is your first post about when you should buy beer. Pay up. Wheres the beer! Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

Maybe at your DZ you are. But as a whole you're not alone. It should be common knowledge that if you want your canopy control to improve then you need to dedicate jumps towards it. Freefall is fun, but it is good canopy control decision which allows us to make that next jump. I'll gladly say that the people at my DZ, if not all, are great and I'm sure every one of them wants to be safe and wants the same for the next person. So I'm not trying to make anyone look bad at all. Please don't take as if I'm saying "people I've seen don't care about learning". I just don't really "see" much of a push or trend to learn certain specific things that are important. I know our DZ is working on programs to change that, because I'm one of the people that is trying to help make those changes... to introduce new instruction towards pre AND post-free fall skills. I know some globally influential people including Scott Miller and the USPA are looking at this to see what we can do. It should be interesting to see what is done in the next year at DZs, through the USPA, etc. Personally, I'm just hoping that any changes are made are aimed at keeping the instruction fun but educational. The last thing I want is for annoying cumbersome changes to be made to the AFF program or A license proficiency card. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

I think your right about that and of course swooping isn't the only cause of landing deaths. Hopefully everyone realizes this. I just wanted to add that I believe there is a lack of desire to develop canopy skills which, if we changed, would put a big dent in the landing fatalities that we see. As I've said many times in the last month, too many people treat their dive as if the only opportunity or even more so a 'need' to learn is in free fall and this opportunity ends as soon as you are under canopy. Obviously this is wrong. I've done nothing but high pulls (8-9k) for the last probably 10 or more jumps and I get a lot of people that look at me and say things like "that is unusual". Of course it is, I'm actually trying to learn the important aspects of this sport to save my own ass and yours and if that is unusual then that could indicate that something is wrong here. Why am I the only one? Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

It isn't even clear what the petition is yet, so why are we "supporting" it? Write up the final "petition" that is word for word going to be presented to the USPA and if I agree with it, I'll put my name down as a supporter. Words can too loosely be translated, so that is why I want to know exactly what is going to be said. Not that I'm too worried about the USPA doing something stupid. I trust them, but still. Is this the final "petition"? Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

Dude the root of the problem is not the turn type. I can do a 90 degree harness turn and still come in smoking fast under a 2.5 loaded xbraced canopy. No the root of the problem is mixing fast canopies with slow ones in the same concurrent airspace and LZ. You highly misinterpreted what I said. What I said was I am FOR that rule (just to say that I'm not against some rules that have been made or rules altogether), I didn't say it was the only way any problem occurs. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

Yup. Not that I am against rules or anything of that sort, but it depends 100% on what the rule is. Exactly what I was thinking. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

I agree with you. As far as presenting anything to the USPA, I would want to know exactly what it is we are presenting word for word before I put my name on as a supporter. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

I'm all for that solution too. Don't have any problem with it. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

I'm not arguing that they didn't see the jumper. I'm arguing that they could have seen the jumper had they been watching traffic correctly and that during a typical load, with any two jumpers, one of those jumpers should be aware of the other in all situations. Therefore for every two jumpers one of those jumpers is able to avoid a situation between the other. Yea, sure as traffic gets thicker it makes it harder, but I guess that is just one of those situations you shouldn't be swooping/etc into. The topic was how do we deal with pattern collisions. Well, my opinion is the best way to avoid them is to be aware of who is around you and make good decisions based on that, because I don't think you're going to deal with collisions any better in any other way. I don't see a better alternative to that unless you plan on installing tracking devices in rigs and artificial intelligence computers that yell at you when you're about to make a mistake. The alternative is to start banning this or that and I don't think we should ban anything we are doing completely. I mean I'm all for "no 270s in the main LZ" and that sort of thing. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

As long as you don't mind being awakened early. Just leave the flaps opened up for the first load to pass through. First person to fly between the flaps and land in the tent gets a free beer. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

I hate to go there, but I'm going to have to. How exactly do you know what they did or did not see or were not able to see if they were looking? If you can honestly provide me with a real scenario where at least one of two different jumpers can not see the other (neither jumper can see the other jumper), I will agree with you, but I just don't see that being possible considering we are not talking about automobile traffic where there are objects such as trees and buildings in the way. It's just a canopy above us and the blind spot below us. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

That really won't help when the issue is someone way above you making a high performance, descending approach. In a few of seconds, someone who was a couple of hundred feet above you in straight flight may become a collision threat. Also, that person may have been in the blind spot above you, impossible for you to see. No offense, but... wrong. Let me explain why. If everyone is paying attention to traffic, the swooper would have known where traffic was and avoided it. This was my entire point. It is EVERYONES job to know where traffic is. If we are doing that, then at least ONE of the two jumpers who are in danger of hitting each other will be able to get out of danger and avoid a situation. It takes everyones participation. Not just you. That was just my point. You may not be able to avoid the swooper that is above you, but the swooper would have been able to. We have jumper A (non swooper) and jumper B (swooper). Jumper A has a responsibility to check his or her traffic and know where everyone within line of sight (outside of blind spots) are. Jumper B has the same responsibility. The difference is that jumper B is in your blind spot, but can see jumper A. Jumper A's blind spot becomes jumper B's responsibility because jumper B is IN it. Confusing, but hopefully you get my point. If you are in someones blind spot, you assume that jumpers responsibility of knowing where you are in his or her blind spot. If I'm not clear still, say your right above me and I can't see you because obviously my canopy is in the way. Get the hell away from me to where I can see you. If you don't, you screwed up. Simple as that. I'll tell you right now. If you ever see me above a canopy in traffic and I don't realize it and turn slightly to get in a spot where everyone can see me... I fucked up pure and simple. You can come up to me and tell me so. I'll agree with you. I'll be glad you told me. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

The real solution to avoiding canopy collisions: looking for other canopies. The way I see it, that alone would have saved every life lost in a canopy collision (if everyone did this). Then if you want to get more technical and go beyond that; learn vertical separation and learn to fly your canopy accurately. How many of you know how to do that? Either way I think (unless there is a lot of traffic), simply looking around you and being aware of where everyone is would prevent any loss of life. Banning everything that kills someone is not the answer. If that is your solution, then sooner or later you will be looking for more ways to make the sport safer. Having banned almost everything, the only thing left will be to ban skydiving itself. Would that make any sense? Of course not. I suggest some of you start looking at this way. Drunk drivers believe they have a right to drink and drive and don't care that they most likely will take out someone else when an accident does occur. As a skydiver you are a canopy pilot and sooner or later if there is a problem in traffic, it won't just be you that gets hurt it will be someone else. It's your responsibility to learn how to fly your parachute correctly. You're right. Although I think most accidents in traffic are caused by experienced jumpers. This still leads to the same conclusion that it would otherwise. We aren't learning what we should when we get into the sport in the beginning. I'm not saying there is a problem with the AFF program or what was taught in static line progression. I think the main problem is that we don't simply choose to learn what we should know, or do the things that are going to save someones life. Right off of AFF you may not have learned this or that, but you could easily choose to. AFF is a good program. Sure it can be improved, but I think we need to look more at ourselves first. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

Damn. What about the runway then? Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

I don't necessarily agree that you should ban spectators on the LZ. What if a few photographers want to get some good photos? If there is a huge 100-way coming in then sure that might be an exception, but completely ban it? No way. You should have to ask permission to be out there, definitely. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

Have you ever seen how skydivers drive. I drive safe. It's the other people I'm worried about. Then again, we all make mistakes. I have. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

This is exactly why I have proposed pushing canopy skills to my DZ and we are in the process of working on programs to improve that very situation. Far too many jumpers come right off student status and get their A license only to jump right into formations and other skills while completely ignoring canopy skills. You're skydive is not over after your canopy is open, nor should your opportunity to learn. The most important skills you can learn are under canopy, not free flying or formations. This is one problem I have noticed and I'm doing what I can as one individual in the community to change this. I suggest more people do the same. I am a supporter of swooping, and of all skills that people like to learn. Don't get me wrong there. I don't want anyone to not be able to participate in any of these skills. What I personally am hoping to help change is the most important skills that people don't seem to want to learn. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

That is because anyone not flying the same pattern is the problem. It's not swoopers. It's not students. It is any jumper deciding to do something differently. It may or may not be the case that students tend to fly a different pattern because they simple don't know any better and are learning, but as far as I'm concerned experience is not some criteria that should be used for decision of who will and will not make mistakes. There is no such thing as a "real swooper", so don't be concerned that you may or may not be one. That is just ideology such as "I'm a real driver, I don't cause accidents". Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

HELLLLLLLLLLL no. That answer your question? Here is a question for you, do you like your femurs intact? Yes? Then don't even think about flying a 135. I weigh 168 lbs. I fly a Triathlon 175. That is as low as I want to go. It's more than fast enough for me to bust my ass on a few times already. I suggest you get under a 190-230 and if you are very comfortable under that then maybe a 175 as it's worked ok for me (except when I fail at PLFs) BUT we are all different and I had about 4 times as many jumps as you do now before I switched. I've got 49 jumps at this time. I jumped the 190 for about 10-12 jumps then went onto my 175 cause I was comfortable. I rolled on the first two 175 landings and the next 7 I stood up for some of the best landings I've ever had. Then I think it was the next 2 landings that I did shitty PLFs on and my knee still hurts a week and a half later. Be careful and please do not fly anything lower than a 190 for a while. You're just starting out. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

He is right. Swoopers are not the problem. Anyone deviating from the agreed upon pattern in the same general area as other traffic that is following the correct pattern, is the problem. I'm not really sure where you intend to go with this, but just in case you believe that swoopers have superior ability because they are swoopers, you would be incorrect. Assuming anything such as this could be dangerous. We could say "well this jumper is a great swooper, let him swoop in with the other jumpers, it'll be ok" and that may be the day he makes the mistake and kills someone. I'm not one hundred percent sure what you meant here. Are you saying that swoopers that swoop into non-swooper's patterns are the problem? If so I agree, they are one of the problems. No offence, but I hate this "true swooper" ideology that some of you have. It's a bit ridiculous. There is no such thing as a true or false swooper. There are just swoopers. Anyone that attempts to or participates in the action of "swooping" is a swooper. You just can't separate them. Definitely not. I don't think that is needed at all. There are too many ways to separate swooping from non-swooping with altitude, landing zones and other methods. I may not be near as experienced as the rest of you, but I had to put my two cents in this conversation. I am a big supporter of safety. I don't believe that it takes much time in the sport to begin to see how not to get killed. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan