tombuch

Nice job! I'd say you are way better prepared than most AFF level I jumpers. As somebody else has pointed out, work on altitude awareness. That tunnel experience was way longer than an AFF jump, and the single most important part of the AFF jump is knowing when (and how) to stop the freefall. So begin to think about time. You will be descending at about 1,000 feet every 5.7 seconds, and the whole freefall should be about 40- 50 seconds. So get a timer going in your head. I'd also say that you need to relax just a bit. That's not criticism, but just an observation. You looked kinda stiff, and as though you were concentrating super hard. That's normal at this stage, but as you gain experience you will need to relax a bit to make the freefall easier and more fun. That will come with time and experience. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Damn, that was a good post, and lots of lessons for us all to learn. Thanks. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Both are outstanding books, and well worth reading. Some DZ's do things differently, but they should stick pretty close to the material in the SIM and the Handbook. You may find the books overwhelming before you jump, but they may also provide you with context now, and then be even better reads once you have been jumping for a while. So, if you are the type of student who wants to know all the tech stuff first, go ahead and read up. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Glad to hear your first jump went well. The line twist you report isn't really a malfunction or incident. Indeed, line twists are very common among beginners, mostly due to body position, although in the AFF program the position of the instructors may also cause some minor asymmetrical deployment leading to line twists. If you (or others) are interested in discussing common line twists (as opposed to specific incidents that begin with significant line twists, I'd suggest you take the discussion to the "general" forum. I don't mean to diminish the line twist experience you had on your first jump, but rather to keep this forum tightly edited so we have quick access to uncommon and serious incidents. 'see ya in the sky.... Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

The pull test is done without the safety thread, so yes, it adds pull force, and the wrong type of thread can be deadly. There are different ways of securing the thread that add different amounts of resistance. The BPA lists a very specific method that is worth checking out. It has been posted here and I used it for a while, perhaps somebody could post a link, or you could do a search. Otherwise, check out the Parachute Riggers Manual, published by the FAA/DOT in 2005. You can download the entire manual for free at: http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/. Warning: it's a 45mb file. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Yup. They should be helping to develop standards so the FAA is satisfied, and stays out of our hair, and so that the 32,000 members are provided with a reasonable level of safety. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Yeah, that is pretty lame-ass. That stuff is cheap, and there is no reason a skydiver shouldn't be expected to purchase a small section of hose and a canula. Heck, we all buy chem lights for night jumps, right? It's an easy solution as long as the DZ has the needed equipment in stock and the skydivers know they need to drop a few bucks for their own life support equipment. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

You are correct with regard to private pilot operations, with the exception that the plane can not be flown for compensation or hire, nor may you serve as pilot for compensation or hire. Nor may you offer to take your friends on that trip if you were not planning to go yourself, even if they split the cost. That is well established by administrative interpretation. The objectives of the pilot and passengers must be the same. So, yeah, it does sound like you have a good understanding of the private pilot world, and are fine doing what you are doing. The Commercial word is a very different and complicated environment. Essentially, a commercial pilot can fly a 'share the expense flight' for his friends too, but there are limits to that privilege. I, as a commercial pilot, can not offer to fly a random person to another location and charge for the service. I can, like a private pilot, split the cost, but only if our objectives are the same. I can not let a group of people split the cost of a flight to a given location unless I also share in the expenses, and was planning to go there anyway. There are two general exceptions. First, if the number of clients I serve is very small and is clearly not a hold out to the public. Second is when a flight is conducted by a "commercial operator." A commercial operator is essentially a charter operation that makes his services available to all comers, or a significant group of comers. Skydiving would be considered a "hold out" and require an operating certificate but for 119.3. What we are talking about here is when does a flight need to be conducted by an operator, and when is it sufficient for a commercial pilot to handle the flight. My answer is that if there is a hold out, that is, the group of potential passengers is more than a few, there must be an operating certificate. I've been discussing this with AOPA and they agree with that assessment. Does that mean the guys in Washington are screwed? I don't know. I don't know the specifics of how the flight was chartered, how the passengers were selected, or what approvals might have been obtained. I do know that all jump pilots should be extra well versed in the craziness of commercial operations because the FAA and NTSB have said over and over again that ignorance of the regulations or how they are applied is not an excuse. Should we be discussing it here? Sure, as long as we are working to self educate and not assess blame in a specific crash. You can be sure the FAA and NTSB will look at the specific type of operation that was being conducted in Idaho/Washington (part 91 or 135), and what regulations should have applied. Thats a standard part of any investigation and they don't need us to open it up. If you want a better read on the topic you would be best to chat with a current instructor who is fully versed in part 61, 91, 119, and 135. It's a crazy and very limiting law. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Let's also consider 91.223 which requires terrain awareness and warning systems for turbine powered aircraft with six or more passenger seats. One of the exceptions is for "Parachuting operations when conducted entirely within a 50 nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operations began." http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF/0/0030211FA04B4359862568C80061AE90?OpenDocument So when we are making skydives we don't need terrain warning systems, but it is required for ferry flights and passenger transportation. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

It was not a Demo but a Boogie at Star Idaho over the weekend. The Star dropzone had contracted the plane owned by Kapowsin Airsports and the flight was returning from the Boogie. The skydivers on board, as I understand it, were hitching a ride to and from. I dont know the details of this ride over but I have made that trip in the past, riding the airplane over and back so it was not uncommon to have people catching the plane. Scott C. Thanks for the correction. That makes it sound far more like a "hold out" in which the operator is willing to take all comers within a group, and it sounds like a recurring operation. It might still be legal...I'm not a lawyer...but I would think an operating certificate or waiver authorization would be required to exceed the 25 mile limit. Plus, it sounds like a ferry flight rather than a skydiving flight. Again, I'm not trying to build a case on this incident, but rather hope to get folks thinking about the kind of flying we do, and when/why it fits under 91 or 135. I've done some digging and have attached a couple of columns from AOPA, and an FAA Advisory Circular on the topic. Some of it deals with private vs. commercial certificates, but it all relates to what the FAA calls a hold out or common carriage. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

As we all know by now there was a crash of a skydiving airplane yesterday. The flight was apparently charted to travel between Washington, and Idaho, a distance of well over 500 miles, for the purpose of transporting skydivers to a demo location. At this point it is unclear if the flight was operated under part 91, or was otherwise operated as for hire under parts 121 or 135. Ferry flights with skydivers aboard are not uncommon in our industry, so we should all understand what is involved in these operations, and what we should expect from the DZ owners and operators. Flights operating under part 91 are limited to general aviation where no “hold out” to the public is involved. That is, the operator does not offer services to the general public, but instead limits services to a very small group of clients. As an example, a private company with a large corporate jet can choose to operate under part 91, but can not make that jet available for charter use. A charter aircraft must be operated under different rules. Conventional skydiving is clearly a “hold out” operation, but part 119.1(e)(6) allows us to operate under part 91 if the flight is conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of the airport of take off. It is possible for a skydiving ferry flight to exceed the 25 mile limit with FAA authorization, and remain legal under part 91, but it is rare. Likewise, it is possible for a skydiving flight to operate under parts 121 or 135, but few owners are willing to do this. One notable exception, I believe, is the jet at Perris Valley. When a flight operates under parts 121 or 135 there are all sorts of additional regulations that apply, including certification of pilots, inspections of aircraft, required instruments, drug testing, crew limitations, management overhead requirements, etc. It is an expensive proposition, but operating under these higher regulations assures the passengers a greater level of safety and lower level of risk. Skydivers and DZ operators should understand these regulations so that we remain in compliance. It is especially important to recognize that the FAA has given our industry special leeway to operate with minimal regulations, as long as we are engaged in skydiving, and not transportation. The FAA views movement to a distant skydiving location as transportation, and not skydiving. If we are engaged in transportations services, the FAA requires that our aircraft and pilots meet the same requirements as other charter operators. Pilots should think carefully about these regulations before beginning a transportation flight, and jumpers should understand the regulations before participating in a long distance flight. As noted in the first paragraph, I don’t know how these regulations relate to the accident aircraft. This post is not directed at that flight, but rather is designed to begin a dialog on what we as jumpers can and can’t do, and should or should not expect from the drop zone and aircraft owners. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Think about it from the perspective of the FAA. They have an interest in assuring passengers that when oxygen is needed, it will be delivered. And they need to assure that poorly designed, installed, or operated systems won’t cause the aircraft to catch fire or explode. I’m not familiar with the system being discussed in this specific case, but a typical skydiving oxygen installation is a mess, with hoses scattered and duct taped everyplace, and oxygen cylinders strapped in a variety of odd places. From an FAA inspectors perspective, that’s a recipe for disaster. There is a big difference between a small portable system for private use, and a big system to feed 20+ paying members of the general public. In the case of a jump plane, the FAA probably wants to make sure the passenger-skydivers are offered a functional, tested, and safe oxygen system. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Not completely true. Different tandem manufacturers set different weight limits. A heavy person will be much more challenging for the instructor. To keep total weight down a small instructor will probably be used, and it can be difficult for a small instructor to handle a big person...not impossible, but difficult. Further, not all weight is the same. A fit person at 270 is a much better candidate than a grossly overweight person, or a really gut-fat person. While the parachute doesn't know anything about the shape of the tandem student, the tandem harness does. And, a fit person will be better able to lift his/her legs and assist with canopy control. Plus, the fit person will simply be much more comfortable in the harness and enjoy the event more. Another issue is the type of life experience the student brings. A student who has done a variety of "exciting" activities or who has an analogous experience in his background will be less likely to tense up or freak out, and that makes him a better candidate. Those past experiences don't guarantee success, but they push the odds a bit further in favor of a safe and enjoyable skydive. My heaviest student was about 250. It was work, but not especially hazardous. My suggestion to the original poster is to call around to several drop zones and ask if they will take a student at 270 pounds. Then explain you have heard it might be dangerous, and see what they say. You should expect a general discussion about how weight affects parachute performance, and how the distribution of weight affects human performance. If the DZ simply says "it's not a problem," or "we're special and that does apply to us," move on to another drop zone. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Accuracy. Try to hit a target on every jump and keep track of your progress. Accuracy will help you hone your overall skill, and put the new tasks and knowledge into practice. Caution: The most important part of the skydive is to land safely. Pick a target in a wide open area, and if you can't hit it, relax and land a distance away rather than forcing accuracy at the expense of injury. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

As I recall, piggybacks didn't really fill the landscape until the mid to late 70's, and gear was still very heavy. Plus, at that point we were into the wing wars. Suits and gear didn't stabilize into the 'sleek' rigs and somewhat fitted jumpsuits (Standardized Fall Rate by Flitesuit) until the early to mid 80's, and I think that's when freefall charts were reconfigured for the new gear and techniques. Of course back then 'C' and 'D' licensed jumpers often opened at 2,000 feet, and low pull contests were not at all uncommon. My first jump was in 1979 in at Frontier Skydivers Wilson, New York. It was on a T-10 with a belly mount round reserve of some kind. I think most of the hot jumpers were still on PC's. I only made three jumps in 1979 and one jump in 1980. I really hit the sport hard in 1981, and at that point students were still taught on t-10's, but the DZ I was at (Gift of Wings in Java, New York) was super progressive and put freefall students on PC's. They also required a student to pack his own main for that first freefall, so on that jump you had your first freefall, first own pack job, and first PC jump...lot's a fear and lots of beer. After about 30 jumps they had a piggyback square available for the advanced students, but still with a belly mount reserve. The main was a ParaPlane Cloud, also known as the "death square" because it opened so damn hard. Finally, late in the summer of 1981 I used $700 of student loan money to buy a piggyback rig with a square. It was a GQ Security Unit in a Security System, with a tri-con round reserve. It was pretty cutting edge stuff, but the girl who sold it to me had made about 10 jumps with two malfunctions, so the technology wasn't really on mark yet. I had a couple of malfunctions early on with that main, but once we moved the control line attachment points, gutted the heck out of the slider, and waxed the cascade knots it became a terrific main, and even did time on the BASE circuit starting in 1983. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Here is page 1 of USPA Part 150.7, dated July 1, 1972, showing freefall tables for openings at 2,500 feet, and a note for adjustments to 2,000 feet. Keep in mind that these tables were created for old gear, and predate piggyback systems. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

You may very well have burned your brain cells, and I congratulate your effort. My original logbook from 1979 had a freefall chart that assumed an opening at 2,500 feet, The lowest exit altitude listed was 2,800 feet for a static line. I have a page from the 1972 USPA SIM (it was called something else back then) marked as "Part 150.7" with multiple freefall charts. The key chart is calculated for an opening at 2,500 feet, but includes a note that a jumper should add 2 seconds for an opening at 2,000 feet. It also notes that 2,000 feet is the altitude for openings by C and D license holders, and the FAI accuracy altitude is 1830 feet. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I'm not suggesting a first jump student should be able to read a winds aloft forecast, but a graduate should be able to. Nor am I suggesting that a winds aloft forecast is the only means of determining a spot. But, it's an important resource (at least in the United States), and licensed jumpers should understand how they work. Heck, maco weather moves in consistent directions, and even low time students should know how "normal" weather patterns relate to the DZ so they can read an internet weather forecast and place movement in relation to the DZ. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

And I think that's the way to do it. When we teach, we should be teaching the student for long term participation. In my book that means that at some point before graduation they should understand direction. They should at least be able to read a winds aloft forecast and relate that to the local DZ. Likewise, if they are in an airplane and the pilot says "the winds at 3,000 are 270 at 30," they should know what that means, and how it relates to their planned jump. If they are jumping in the United States they should know that winds are reported in knots (most of us still think in miles per hour). A good instructor will even be able to discuss true vs. magnetic headings, and help the student to understand that winds are reported true, while our ground references (such as runway headings) are magnetic, and obviously if the instruction does go that deep, the instructor should know roughly what the difference is at the local DZ. The USPA ISP includes a section for 'pilot talk,' and this may be ideal material for a pilot to discuss with the student. In any event, the first jump should follow the concept of KISSS (Keep it short, simple, and specific), while follow-on training should add depth. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Would you like to explain why that is scary? t How does he calculate the exit point with a winds aloft forecast, or teach his students to do the same? If he identifies a storm cell moving in while on jump run, how does he convey that information (with direction) to the other jumpers on the ground? How does he share information with the pilot(s)...I know he could say "to the left side of the airport by the park," or "near Farmer McNasty's house," but it is plenty easier and more professional to speak with other aviators in terms they understand, and it well worth teaching our students to do the same as they progress through the program. Heck, if I was a student one of the first things I'd ask is what are the runway headings (I'm a pilot), and I would have no faith in my instructor if he couldn't answer such a basic question. Not knowing directions isn't scary as in "OMG we're going to die," but it's such a basic element of navigation and organization in the aviation world that it is sort of scary to think an instructor has missed that basic information and is not at all ashamed to say so out load. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

You probably have an old application form. The organization moved in 2006. Forwarding of phone and mail has probably expired. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Aside from the back strap, is the hook knife not snapped on, or is there another attachment point that I can't see in the picture? Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

If you were the student, your performance was pretty damn fine. Good job handing instability. The issue here is with the performance of your instructors...it looks like they were both having a bad day at the same time. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Interesting question. A few years ago I had a similar student. He was a New Yorker, very high up in the Microsoft marketing/sales group. It was his third time out for AFF in three years, and as you described he wanted to move to the next level. The prior year he had done a level two with attempted turns, and it was marginal. We agreed he should do another level two with two instructors, and if we felt he was stable we would do the release. Of course there was virtually no chance of a release, and he was disappointed when we landed. The debrief was initially pretty straight forward, and then we discussed his currency. Clearly he was smart enough to manage the risks and general knowledge, and he had a solid physical aptitude for the sport, but he just wasn’t staying active. He wanted to jump more, but his job was demanding, he was active in golf, and as I recall, he did some boating. Plus, he had a house in the Hamptons. I strongly suggested he either make a commitment to the sport, or do other things and come back when he was ready to spend a few weeks making a series of jumps. I think he understood that the progression was in his hands, not ours, and that his performance alone would determine the dive plan. I don’t think he came back, but hopefully, at some later point in his life he will. I’m also certified as a SCUBA diver, but I only get in the water every 3-4 years. Before I return to the sport I make a point to read the training book cover to cover, and then schedule a pool session the day prior to the open water dive. I ask the dive shop to hook me up with whoever the open water dive master will be, and ask him for an honest review of my skill retention prior to venturing into the ocean. That seems to work well. Of course I pay for the pool session and offer an appreciative tip at the end. I find there are usually just a few things I need to work on, and we keep the open water dive pretty mellow. It’s never been a problem, and I always seem to underestimate my skill level relative to the instructors objective evaluation. SCUBA offers that opportunity for controlled instruction and analysis even in the deeper water, skydiving really doesn’t. Rock climbing is another sport where the return can be several years later, with supervision and progression determined by the instructor/guide as the climbing session progresses. But sometimes there is no real progression, and the student/client needs to be comfortable with that. Hummmm, come to think of it, I don’t do much flying these days, and the biannual flight review is always a challenge. There too I expect the instructor to offer an honest evaluation of my skills, and I don’t expect to move forward until we both agree I’m ready. As with SCUBA diving, I arrive at the review session with all the bookwork out of the way, and an action plan to address things I know I’m weak at, or feel like I’m missing. It’s also pretty easy for a good instructor to identify other weak areas, and I’m willing to accept my own sub par performance as proof that additional training is needed. It would be foolish to try to jump forward without reestablishing the base performance. I also teach snowboarding and fly fishing. In both sports we have lots of folks who come out and expect to pick up where they left off a year or two earlier. I always start the session with simple tasks, and that’s often enough for the client to recognize his own weaknesses, and we train from there. Once we have returned to the prior year base point, we can start forward progression. Skydiving is probably unique in that a jumper must be capable of handling the entire experience alone, including any foreseeable malfunction, and there is no means of ramping the experience up or down midstream. In any case, the participant needs to respect the judgment of the instructor/guide, and not push things too fast. It also helps if the client does some recurrent studying in advance so the basic knowledge is there, and he can help direct the physical training. As with many sports, it may be simply a matter of taking a small step back, and then pushing forward, but that forward progression won’t happen with a single jump every year or two. Ideally we are teaching from a foundation of Safety, Fun, Learning, and looking for ways to make the recurrent training both satisfying and fun for the client. Whatever I’m teaching or learning, I try to remember the instruction is just part of the journey, and the objective is not to skydive, fly fish, SCUBA dive, or rock climb, but to have fun. Those sports/activities are just a means to that end…fun, and with the right mindset we can achieve fun even without forward progression. It’s obviously sometimes tough to convey that to a metrics or goal oriented client (like my Microsoft level 2/3 student). I’ll also point out that my expectations in other sports/activities are colored by my experience as a skydiving instructor working on the other side of the table. Most of our skydiving students don’t have that experience or perspective, and thus their expectations are probably more likely to be unreasonable. As we teach skydiving, we also need to subtlety teach expectations. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Yup. It sure would be safer, but that takes an extra person. Of course in the event of a malfunction that radio person can offer assistance right away. That really matters in some situations. Of course that means the person on the radio should be an instructor as well, and radio phraseology should be worked out and standardized in advance. I think most of us agree drop zones should be placing greater emphasis on canopy control. Ideally, that means a student is well trained prior to the jump, and then supervised by a radio operator who takes notes, and then either does a full canopy debrief, or passed his notes along to the instructor for the canopy debrief. Too often the radio person is just an experienced jumper who gives far to many directions, and then offers little informed feedback. This is certainly an area many drop zones can find room for improvement. (NOTE: This is a general comment about the state of canopy control education and radio support. I do not have any idea how the DZ discussed in this case handles either.) Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy