AndyMan

The official TSA policy is that you should leave it unlocked. In reality, though - it depends on where you're flying from, and if the suitcase contains anything likely to trigger a hand search. Many smaller airports in the US do not have luggage xray capability, and instead hand search each piece of luggage. If you're flying through one of these airports, you can be assured that the TSA will open your bag, and will destroy any lock that's keeping it closed. Most larger airports in the US do have luggage xray, and will use that to screen the luggage. If your luggage passes the XRay without any concerns, then your locks will be fine. However, if they have any reason to want to hand search your bag, they'll be opening your locks. Items that are known to cause them to hand search: Parachutes. Tools - ANY tools, including small wrenches. Other rigging tools. Anything containing lead shot - packing weights, weight belts, etc. Most US jumpers traveling with their skydiving gear try to take all their sensitive or expensive skydiving gear as carry-on, so that the jumper will always be able to explain any concerns the inspectors may have. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

We're not talking about skydiving, we're talking about skydiving aviation operations. Recent major incididents: Twin Otter, Sullivan Mo - Destroyed, 6 fatalities. Serious Maintenance issues discovered. Cessna 206, Mt Vernon Mo - Destroyed, 2 fatalities. Serious Maintenance and pilot training issues discovered. Cessna 182, Marion Mt - Destroyed, 5 fatalities. Overweight, insufficient pre-flight. Cessna Caravan, Naches WA. Destroyed, 10 fatalities. VFR Flight into known IRF. And that's just in the last TWO YEARS. I repeat: Skydiving (aviation operations) in particular has a terrible track record of judging between what's safe and what's legal. Give that it seems incapable, it should probably stick to what's legal. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I just don't get the point of the question. Thank the rigger and go jump. Many jumpers hand their rig happily off to a virtually unknown "packer" who doesn't hold any ratings, and likely hasn't been in the sport very long. These packjobs are often illegal because they aren't supervised by riggers are required by FARs. Why would someone feel safe with a packer, but worry about the rigger? Riggers have made big investments in their ratings, and have likely been in the sport for years, if not decades...? Also, you trust them for your reserve, but not your main...? Odd. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Skydiving in particular has a terrible track record of judging between the two. Given that it seems incapable, it should probably stick to what's legal. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Well yes, but - I don't think you can be in violation of the FAR's unless the FAA has found you to be in violation of the FARs. Without the FAA, there's no violation, there's no grounds for dismissal. A dismissal without an FAA ruling would be grounds for lawsuit, similar to the whole SkyRide mess. Thus - it's up to the FAA to enforce FAR's. After that, the USPA can jump on after the fact. I don't know if the USPA has done so in the past, or if they plan on in the future, but the IANAL in me says to do so would be to open themselves up to tremendous liability. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Quades discussion of semantics is interesting, but it's irrelevant. The USPA does not regulate jumping aircraft. The FAA does. It's the FAA that would punish a DZ for flying unairworthy aircraft, not the USPA. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Legally? Yes. Mains need to be inspected and repacked at least every 180 days just like reserves. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I'd jump it, then ask a master rigger to fix them. Lets face it, risers are expensive! _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Capacitors can be tested, and cutters can be replaced a lot less expensively than entire units. There really is no reason other than greed for Airtec to end-of-life the Cypres. Thank gods we've got alternatives! _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I'm making some assumptions about how old the gear is. A barely used G3 should have a pretty high price. I'd guess someone around 1400, given that they retail for around 1800. A Sabre 150 with 800 jumps has had a lot of use. These retail for around $1600. Half of that is 800, and you should subtract another 200 for the lines. $600. Same thing for the 170, but a hundred bucks more since it's got a hundred jumps less. $700. PD Reserves can be gotten new for around 900. They hold their value well if not used, but a lot of repacks will affect the price. As long as there's a small number of repacks, I say $800. Just my opinion, but these numbers are probably good starting points. Adjust as demand warrants. There's a lot of used gear out there right now. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I'll be more impressed with the Pulse once I see how many people buy it. At my DZ, even the old-timers who don't swoop fly the same canopies as the people that do. There's an inordinate number of people flying Katanas and Crossfires at low and high wing loadings that fly standard approaches. The fact is that the manufacturers have done a great job of selling the image of swooping. Even the people that don't swoop, do buy into the image and buy the same HP canopies. If PD wants the Pulse to be a success they have an immense marketing job ahead of them that I think directly contradicts a lot of the message from recent history. For example, PD has recently put a lot of money marketing the Spectre, but I never saw a lot of non-sponsored or cameraflyers flying them, because it was never 'cool' despite PD's full page ads. You don't even see that many camera flyers flying them any more. Even Tony Hathaway went the way of the Velocity. All that money that went into the marketing the Spectre went to waste (i prognosticate...) because the message was out of line with the bigger PD image. I think PD has an immense challenge to make the Pulse something different than the Silhouette. I just don't hear a lot of people talking about it, outside of the industry itself. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Does anyone have any tips for making an Icon look nice? My first attempt was way too bulky under flap 4, and looked terrible. My second attempt probably over comensated, and made a nice top, but wrinkley and puffy bottom. Where should be bulk go? Also, is it just me or does the Icon manual suck? The instructions for toggle settings are just plain wrong, there's nothing at all about the line-stow hesitator loops , and there's nothing about fabric distribution. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

To directly answer your question, 'Yes'. However, I don't think it's wise to try to game the differences in canopy sizes. It would be foolish, for example - to say to yourself that it's "safe" to jump a canopy one size smaller, because the manufacturer measures differently. I hope that's not why you're asking. That'd be foolish. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

It really depends on how much of a commitment you make. At one extreme are teams making 500+ jumps per year (with 5 people, that's 2500 jumps per year!) - some of these teams can get their jumps pretty much at cost - $12-13/jump, or $60-$70 for the whole team. Some dz's prefer to charge a higher per slot rate, but then give a "free slot" to the camera flyer or coach. Of course most teams can't commit to 500 jumps per year. If you're looking at 100 or 200 jumps per year, than expect your discounts to be significantly less. Less than 100 team jumps and you really shouldn't expect any kind of discount at all. The magic really starts to happen when you move from being a weekend team to one that trains on weekdays. DZO's are a lot more willing to give discounts when you aren't bumping full-rate fun-jumpers off a load on a busy Saturday. The teams that get the biggest discounts actually help get full-rate jumpers on Saturday loads by doing coaching and organizing events. Ultimately, the discussion with a DZO is going to be the team telling the DZO what you can do for him, and convincing him he should give a steep discount. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Nope. The image of a someone hitting the pond at the same time as their canopy, followed by a detailed reading of the toxycology reports present a very clear picture. It's really quite simple. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=147 _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I don't know if you were harsh or not, but I can say this: If I ever suggest to someone else that he give up the sport, that will represent a failure as me as an instructor. It will represent a failure in my ability to reach students through whatever means necessary to teach them to love the sport like I do. Now, not every student that walks onto the DZ is going to get their 'A', that much is obvious, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Instructors are responsible for the future of skydiving. If we approach it carefully with respect, we can help others to learn the love that we feel. If we approach it half-heartedly, we serve a disrespect not only to the students, but to the sport as a whole. That's all I'll say on that matter. To address your other question - yes, Students do stupid things. It's their right. It's our responsibility as instructors to prep them before the jump, and correct them after the jump when they inevitibly screw up. God knows they'll screw up. They're students, that's what they do. I certainly did... I don't see a lot of value in telling scary student stories in an open forum like this. It's too easy for it to turn into a 'bash the student' thread. Some of the scary students I've known have grown into good skydivers. Some of them have even been featured in parachutist. Those are the stories I'd rather tell. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I think you had absolutely no business doing that. Students are expected to make mistakes - and quite frankly, it's their right to make a certain number of mistakes. They're students, and their instructors are supposed to be educating them and helping them make good choices, but also providing direction and enforcing rules to help keep them out of trouble in the first place. In this case, it sounds like this student was let down by his instructors who let him jump in high wind, and didn't help prepare him for strange circumstances. As an instructor, I'd be very upset if a newbie like you was giving instruction, never mind the bowling speech to one of my students. I've never given the bowling speech. I hope I never will. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Thanks. I'll go back to square 1. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I have two Cypreses (Cyprii?). One of them, an Original Cypres, is rapidly approaching it's 12 year end of life, and will soon turn into a paper-weight, even though it self tests OK every time I turn it on, and shows no sign of premature wear or malfunction. My second Cypres, the updated Cypres 2 is currently in the hands of SSK in Ohio undergoing its 4 year service, even though I have absolutely no reason to believe there's anything wrong with it. This service is costly, and is required regardless of wear or usage patterns. I'm annoyed with the state of both of my Cypreses. One I will soon throw in the trashcan for absolutely no good reason. The other is currently undergoing costly maintenance for equally poor reasons. When I replace my next ADD, I will not be buying another Cypres. The Vigil seems to be more popular in my neck of the woods than the Argus. I consider them all trust-worthy. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

The turn is a recent problem. The canopy is old, but the lines are newer. There's less than 100 jumps on the lineset. The turn showed up in the last few jumps. I've checked the lines and attachment points, but haven't done a complete trim-check. The lines are symmetrical side-to-side. The fabric is the older Aerodyne zero-P. I was expecting it to be some kind of fabric issue because the canopy is used for CRW. The turn is significant, requiring toggle to the shoulder to keep it flying straight. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I'm a new rigger. I'm trying to figure out why my Triathlon has a strong left turn. The only damage I've found is some wear and fraying on the outboard crossports. Attached is a photo of the wear. I expect some fraying, but the fraying is not symmetrical, and tears are appearing on the aft side of the crossport. I can't think of an easy way to repair this without replacing the whole rib. Poytner recommends a patch with sewing on 3 sides, but I'm skeptical that would work well - especially since I'm trying to fix a turn. I guess my questions are as follows: Is this type of damage consistent with causing significant turns? Have riggers successfully fixed this type of damage on a canopy flown at a 1.4 wingloading? What standard do riggers use when evaluating worn crossports? __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I just got mine too. I quickly turned to the back hoping the editorial would explain why the paper is being shut down. I was disapointed that it did not. I have to say I'm a bit surprised at this outcome. I had not heard of any attempt to sell the paper. To simply shut down leaves many questions unanswered. Has anyone heard distinctly why this outcome? Surely there were alternatives? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

The plan is that neither instructor will release the student on a level 1 jump. However, given specific circumstances, that plan can change. One instructor will release if he thinks if it will help the other instructor. For example, if all 3 are on their back, one instructor may release in order to allow the other to help with a rollover. You generally can't do a rollover with a second instructor hanging on to the other side. Both instructors letting go is really never in the plan. Of course it does happen, and it's happened to me, and it really isn't any fun at all. The cause of both instructors letting go is probably miss-communication between the instructors, something there really isn't any excuse for. Lastly, the plan totally changes again come deployment time. Instructors are expected to give up and pull well before 2000 feet, whether or not the student has pulled. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Mark, thanks for all the help. You and a few of the other instructors helped me tremendously and I learned a ton. We do appreciate the effort. I was especially grateful that you guys worked with me after I had to drop out for a day. Jen, I stand by my previous analysis. You are indeed a post-whore. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I teach because I want my students to love the sport just as much as I do, and ultimately - for just as long as I do. If I can't do that, at least I can show them why I love it so much. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.