tombuch

Perhaps. Your experience with various kinds of rigs is broader than mine. The only rig I've personally seen with this problem was one that the hardware was definitely worn out. A Master Rigger determined that. It was sent back to the factory where the hardware was replaced. In my experience (4,500 jumps, instructor, rigger, etc.) it is more likely the webbing is worn out. Hardware is pretty solid stuff. Webbing, however, can and does begin to wear out and slide over time. Take a close look at the webbing. Check the color and texture of the webbing on the sides and center, both front and back. Look for changes, generally a slight gloss or shiny appearance. It's not really a big deal, and is actually common to some degree on many older rigs. As was mentioned in a prior thread, the leg strap webbing should be folded and sewn so it can't slide out by accident. Check this too. Sometimes owners cut their leg straps to reduce the extra webbing, and then fail to fold and sew. You shouldn't see this on any rig, and that's especially true on a student rig, but it can (and does) happen. As for the harm of worn leg straps, you will probably not fall out as long as they are folded and sewn. However, slipping leg straps can cause a poor harness fit at opening, and a misload. That can be painful, or even worse. Slipping leg straps also put the chest strap closer to your neck at opening, and that's not a good thing. Hey, slipping leg straps will also make it harder (or perhaps impossible) to reach your toggles, another negative experience. So, check your leg straps for wear, and if it is a new rig to you, a rental, or student rig, also check to confirm they are sewn over. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

AvWeb filed a short follow-up to the crash of a Beaver Valley skydiving plane last year. The report is listed below, along with the link to today's Avweb newsletter http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/351-full.html#189135 Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I think the fastest way is direct bag. DB is probably also best with an unstable student because they can't grab the static line, and it gets the canopy in the air quickly. With that said, the cleanest deployments with a standard piggyback rig and square main seem to be with IAD. I've done both as the jumper and instructor. IAD wins as the most comfortable deployment, static line direct bag wins as the most secure. Try the different methods yourself in both the student and instructor positions. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Check my reply to this thread, it's the third post in the thread...http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1438929;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

My layman’s reading of the regulations (see definitions, 105.3) suggests that the FAA considers a tandem rig without the second passenger harness to be a single-harness, dual parachute system, and that it can be jumped without specific manufacturer approval. The difference between the two classifications seems to be the addition of the separate forward harness for a passenger parachutist. The issue remains murky, but I think it would be reasonable (under regulation) for a parachutist to use a tandem system on a solo jump. Of course it’s also important to understand the significant differences between a regular sport rig and a tandem rig, and thus it is NOT reasonable for an untrained parachutist to actually jump a tandem rig. Tandem rigs have unique deployment systems, and special emergency procedures that require training and experience to master, and should not be flown without that training. 105.3 Single-harness, dual parachute system: means the combination of a main parachute, approved reserve parachute, and approved single person harness and dual-parachute container. This parachute system may have an operational automatic activation device installed. Tandem parachute operation: means a parachute operation in which more than one person simultaneously uses the same tandem parachute system while descending to the surface from an aircraft in flight. Tandem parachute system: means the combination of a main parachute, approved reserve parachute, and approved harness and dual parachute container, and a separate approved forward harness for a passenger parachutist. This parachute system must have an operational automatic activation device installed. 105.45 (a) No person may conduct a parachute operation using a tandem parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a tandem parachute system, unless... See http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c762c4cdd5d34aac182d9ff11c0dab48&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr105_main_02.tpl for complete regulations. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Technically, yes, the jumper and pilot can be held responsible, and so can the drop zone owner/corporation, and the packer. The regulation reads as follows: The words "person" and "parachute operation" have been defined to include just about anybody involved in the event. For more information about regulations please see the S&TA area of The Ranch web site at: http://ranchskydive.com/safety/index.htm Specifically, read article 11 that covers packing requirements, and article 13, covering general regulations. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I really like chest mounted altimeters, especially for conventional RW because I don't need to take my eyes away from the formation to know what the altitude is. I suppose that isn't so much the case with freeflying. I find that when in a group of flat flyers I'd rather have three or four altimeters available on other peoples chests, rather than just mine...that reduces the likelihood that I'll rely on a single altimeter that is inaccurate. Besides, sharing altimeters on a skydive is an old school social thing to do. I especially like looking at a chest mount when I'm tracking because with a quick glance down i can see where I am, then continue the glance around to look for other tracking jumpers, all without changing my direction of flight or pitch. I see too many people with wrist mounts looking at their wrists and not tracking straight, or at all. I've handled a few (two) accident reviews when bridles were snagged on wrist mounts. I don't know of any fatality yet, but freak accidents happen with all gear. So, I guess the point of my post is that there are pluses and minus with both wrist and chest altimeters. It becomes a matter of personal preference. In my case, I've pretty much switched to a wrist mount because there are so few chest mounts on my skydives, that I need to look at my own anyway, and if I'm going to look at my own in freefall, the wrist mount is a bit easier to see. So, if you are returning to the sport, feel free to use your chest mount, or simply switch the mount so the same altimeter works on your wrist. It's all fun. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

This is the FAA discussion of the topic as listed in the Federal Register, May 9, 2001: ***Proposal: The FAA proposed to define the term ``supervision'' as the act of a certificated rigger personally observing the packing of a parachute by a noncertificated person to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly. Comments: Several commenters recommend revising the proposed definition of the term ``supervision'' to include that the certificated rigger is readily available in person for consultation. One commenter recommends that the definition be amended to state that a certificated rigger also ``. . . takes responsibility for that packing.'' FAA response: The FAA agrees with the comment that a certificated rigger needs to be available during the packing process. The FAA has adopted a revised definition in the final rule to address this concern by changing ``supervision'' to ``direct supervision.'' Although the term ``direct supervision'' was not used in the NPRM, the FAA believes that adding the word ``direct'' clarifies the FAA's intent that a certificated rigger must be on the premises during the parachute packing process. The certificated rigger's presence ensures that he/she is readily available in person for consultation. In addition, the FAA agrees with the commenters that direct supervision includes taking responsibility for the packing. Therefore, the phrase ``and takes responsibility for that packing'' has been added to the term ``direct supervision'' in the final rule. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

My short answer to you is NO, you are not responsible for the work of uncertificated packers unless you choose to take that responsibility. When the regulation was proposed I was concerned that I, as a certificated rigger, might be pegged as a supervising rigger, even if I was just in the general area of uncertificated packers. So, I submitted a comment to the proposed regulation asking that supervising riggers must actively take responsibility for the work being supervised. My comments were incorporated into the final rule. Supervision, as defined by the regulation requires three things: 1) Some level of training 2) Some level of ongoing supervision 3) A clear willingness to take responsibility for the work being supervised. See Article 11 at:http://ranchskydive.com/safety/index.htm Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Actually, I recall there are two different Pro Tec helmets. One is made for the general domestic market, the other has a different kind of foam and is made for the California market, where there are higher state standards. I did some research on the issue last year and posted here detailing the standards for the Pro Tec. Do a search and see what you can find. The other thing worth noting is that different helmets have different kinds of shells designed to withstand different impact levels. Consumer Reports did a feature about ski/snowboard helmets last year that covered all the details. As I recall, there was even one brand/model that did great on all the tests, but one color of that model failed because the metallic paint weakened the shell. It's interesting stuff. To suggest that 'a helmet is a helmet' misses the tech side of design. it's sort of like saying 'a parachute is a parachute.' Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Your helmet should be fine. The Boeri helmets are tested and certified for skiing and snowboarding under one of several ski specific international standards. I suspect that the impact mechanisms of skiing are probably pretty close to low impact skydiving accidents. Keep in mind that skydiving specific helmets are NOT certified in any category or for any application (with the exception of the Pro Tec). Boeri helmets are considered very good in the ski/snowboard industry. Before you use your ski helmet for skydiving, check carefully for snag points, especially around the ears. It is important that there not be any elements that may snag a line. Also check the weight of the helmet. Deceleration creates a high g-load, and a heavier helmet may present a problem at opening time. Many ski/snowboard hemmets are designed to be very lightweight, so this might not be a problem with yours. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

You are correct. This plan is available only to permanent legal residents of California, who have been US residents for at least three months, and are not older than 64-3/4. It is an interesting plan, and if successful, we can hope that other companies match the offer. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Bodypilot1 had a pretty good summary of the kinds of accidents students have. My experience (4,500 jumps) suggests most injuries are to the foot and leg, with a few spinal compressions. Those injuries are generally caused by students making judgment errors in the landing phase of flight. I'd guess that most skydiving injuries are to students and recent graduates, but that most of the very serious injuries are to experienced jumpers. That's just my hunch. For another discussion of accidents, please see a current thread at: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1438929;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread. Your pre-jump research is a good idea. I wrote a book (JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy) for folks like you who wonder what the sport is all about, and how to arrange the most suitable training. There is a chapter devoted to statistics (primarily fatalities), and another chapter devoted to psychology. I also include a collection of "interview" questions that will help you evaluate a drop zone by phone and when visiting. JUMP! is available at many bookstores, and through online retailers such as Amazon. Click on the link in my sig for detail. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Sorry about your accident, and sorry you were not active when The Ranch had their Safety Day early in the season. I presented some interesting statistics at that meeting that address your question about injury rates. First, national numbers are very tough to come by. USPA has a question on the membership renewal form asking about doctor visits in the past year. The USPA membership reported a four year average of one doctor visit related to skydiving for every 22 members. My drop zone keeps careful records of total jump numbers broken down by either members (experienced jumpers) or students, with student participation further broken down by tandem or IAF. We also know how many members the club has, and the average number of jumps each member makes. In addition to all that, we know how many ambulance calls we have. I have not compiled numbers from 2004 yet, so what I'm presenting here are the numbers from the 2003 season, as discussed at our Safety Day last April. Statistics will vary between drop zones. In 2003 the national fatality rate was 1:83,468 jumps (estimated by USPA), and the rate per member was 1:1,305. In 2003 our drop zone reported an ambulance call for every 2,989 jumps. That is about 1 ambulance call for every 149 Otter loads. When students are filtered out of the jump numbers and ambulance calls (an inexact process), we find an annual ambulance response rate of roughly 1 for every 41 registered club members (experienced jumpers). Another interesting statistic was developed based on 2002 accident data reported by the local rescue squad. According to their run sheets, 27 percent of our ambulance calls were for accidents off the drop zone. Of course only a very tiny percentage of our jumps involved landings off the drop zone, so we focused on off-field landings as an area that needed specific improvement. The 2003 numbers showed some progress, and I think our 2004 numbers will be even better. For a quick review of the hazards of off field landings, please see article 16 at http://ranchskydive.com/safety/index.htm. You will probably find many other topics of interest in the collection of S&TA features. In 2004 we seemed to have a large number of landing related injuries in the student and recent graduate categories, including your butt strike on the edge of the runway. I think part of that may be related to the use of tandems as training jumps, or more specifically, it may be related to the way we integrate tandems into our training program. While I can’t comment directly about the specific fatality or your accident, I did look at canopy control instruction as a contributing factor in many student accidents and fatalities at our DZ and around the country. I touched on some of the training issues in a thread at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1317166;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread. I think some of the training issues discussed may be relevant to your accident too. So, there you have some quick statistics about injuries, buried in a much longer post about safety in general. I may offer a statistical review of 2004 at The Ranch Safety Day this spring, or I may instead focus on aircraft and airspace issues. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Some quick 10 year statistics (USA domestic) from my book: 1 out of every 70,130 jumps results in a fatality, and there is one fatality for every 903 USPA members. Those simple stats don't tell the complete story. Tandem tends to be much safer, and there are many things an individual jumper can do to improve the odds. Continue doing your research, and make conservative decisions. I can't assure you that skydiving is an appropriate activity given your lifestyle...only you can do that. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I like the odd aircraft, so for me the top three are 1) Blimp 2) Ultralight 3) 727 Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Please see an S&TA feature I wrote on The Ranch web site last year. It is number 10, called "In An Emergency" and details ouor response plan. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

A USPA level 3 is a release dive, so there shouldn't be a problem with one JM flying in front. It is, however, important for the student to know that might happen. It is also important that the second AFF instructor (if there is one) knows a fly around might happen. Smiling is always a great relaxer. It can be used by a good instructor on any level jump at the standard COA's. I'm glad to hear you watched (and noticed) a pro employ this simple technique. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

See http://www.diverdriver.com/ Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

That seems kinda odd to me. I suppose some S&TA's will require signatures, but a running total of time? That's a bit much. Total time supported by jump numbers and logged altitudes (if different than your local standard) should suffice. When I sign off on any license I look for signatures, but don't make a big deal if they are missing. I do make a big deal about having specific jumps logged with the required performance and accuracy requirements. Of course I tend to be a bit looser with local jumpers who I see on the DZ, and when jump numbers can be easily verified through the manifest computer. I tend to be a bit stricter with visiting jumpers who should really be getting the sign off from their home S&TA (assuming they have a specific home DZ). Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

It isn't hard, but you do need to read the SIM and study a bit. For details see article 4 called "License Exams" at http://ranchskydive.com/safety/index.htm Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Bill nailed most of my thoughts pretty well. I'd add a few things. One of the possible causes may be a cardiac or stroke issue. Descending at max speed might not be the best bet. Consider where and when you will be able to get a trained and equipped medical response. At my drop zone an emergency call is handled by the local rescue squad, and they have about a 10 minute response time. Landing any sooner than that won't get the jumper any specialized help. Another option may be to divert to a better equipped airport. At my drop zone, we can get to Dutchess County Airport and have an on site CFR with an AED in the same time it would take to get the local volunteers to the DZ. We would also have an ALS unit close by for transport, probably as fast as the volunteer BLS group. On top of that, definitive hospital care is only about a five minute drive, rather than a 20 minute drive from the drop zone. So, if I was on the plane I would ask for a divert to Dutchess, declare an emergency, and request an ALS response. As for descent speed, my objective would be to get to a lower altitude quickly, but without over stressing the patient. A rapid descent will improve ambient oxygen levels, but won't get definitive care any faster. So, I would ask for about 8,000 MSL as a quick descent, then a reduced descent rate en route to the alternate. Every DZ is different, and every case is different. If you have a good emergency response program with oxygen on the field, a rapid descent to the DZ might be the best thing to do. If you are at a rural DZ without a trained responder, a diversion might be best. It's an interesting topic to consider and discuss with the skydiving staff and flight crews. We actually had such a problem on jump run with a student this summer. The JM called down, landed as normal, and was met by a DZ representative for evaluation. The local rescue squad wasn't even called. The student turned out to be fine after a few minutes on the ground. Of course if it was a cardiac issue, the outcome wouldn't have been so great. My preference would have been a more aggressive response as listed above. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I did a bit of additional research this morning and tracked down the original NPRM, and the final rule with comments. The final rule was published in the Federal Register (Volume 65, Number 61) on March 29, 2000, and includes interesting comments along with FAA reasoning for the original rule, and the changes made in the final rule. (See: http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=347845283939+6+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve) While the published rule suggests that a turbine powered airplane used for skydiving should be covered by the rule when beyond 50 miles of the departure point, the FAA discussion of comments received from both the parachute industry and the cargo industry suggests otherwise. The FAA received more than 200 unique comments, with half of those from the parachute industry, all expressing concern about the proposed rule. They also received 254 form letters from the parachute industry opposing the rule. Skydivers made a huge difference in the final rule, and special appreciation should be extended to USPA and PIA. Additional key comments were received from cargo operators, and while not directly related to parachuting, the changes generated by those comments helped us too. The FAA agrees that skydiving should not be covered when within 50 miles of the airport of departure. So, when we are flying within 50 miles of our drop zone, we don’t need TAWS. The comments from the cargo industry related to “configured” with six or more passenger seats. The original rule applied to airplanes “type certificated” with six or more passenger seats, and was changed to “configured” so cargo operators could use airplanes certificated for passenger flight, but without seats. It appears that the intent of the regulation was to protect passengers, and not to protect airplanes. It is my interpretation of intent that the FAA would recognize a skydiving airplane on a ferry flight as a cargo airplane, as long as it is operated under part 91, and would not require TAWS. We should understand that the final rule, as published, seems to prohibit ferry flights without TAWS, but that the intent of the rule, expressed in the FAA comments holds otherwise. It might be a good idea for operators to obtain a specific interpretation of this rule from their local GADO/FSDO as it pertains to ferry flights without passengers, but with installed seatbelts. See selected FAA comments below, and the complete record in the Federal register. (Page 1637-FAA Review of Comments)“…Parachute operators and parachutists say that they should be exempt from the proposed rule. They state that the nature of parachute operations makes GPWS and TAWS unnecessary. The U.S. Parachute Association (USPA) and the Parachute Industry Association strongly object to the mandatory installation of TAWS for airplanes used in parachute operations. The following arguments are presented by the parachute industry: Parachuting is primarily a visual flight rules (VFR) activity, conducted during the day, during which terrain is always visible and weather conditions are good. Occasionally, parachute operators fly in instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions, e.g., to ferry an airplane, but these operations are performed with no passengers. Parachuting is primarily done in the proximity of the departure airport (usually within a 10-mile radius) and the pilots are familiar with the obstacles and terrain features around their home fields. Parachutists are the passengers in these airplanes (not the traveling public, which the proposed rule is seeking to protect). These airplanes are used only as a means for the parachutists to get to altitude for jumping. Parachute operations have not been associated with CFIT accidents. Some commenters state that the NPRM cites no such accidents in parachute operations. Therefore, the commenters do not believe GPWS or TAWS would have made a difference in the outcomes of any accidents involving parachute operations. USPA and other commenters from the parachute industry go on to say that since TAWS would provide no safety benefit to parachute operations, they should not have to bear the cost of installing TAWS on these airplanes. Some commenters add that these costs would be especially burdensome to small operators who already have a very small profit margin, which could result in their going out of business. Several commenters believe that the cost of installing TAWS on turbine- powered airplanes used in parachute operations could result in some operators switching back to using older and smaller non-turbine airplanes, which would have a negative effect on the growth and safety of the parachute industry. The FAA agrees with the commenters. Parachute and skydiving operations are unique in that operations are conducted under VFR conditions, in close proximity to the home field, with constant reference to the ground. Furthermore, there are only a small number of airplanes involved in these types of operations. The FAA has changed Sec. 91.223 in the final rule to exclude airplanes when used for parachute operations and operated within 50 miles of the home airport…” (Page 1638-FAA Review of Comments)“…Federal Express believes that airplanes type-certificated as cargo airplanes that do not carry passengers should not be required to install TAWS as proposed by the NPRM. Federal Express also believes that the Fokker airplanes, which were converted from a passenger to a cargo-only configuration, should not have been covered by the NPRM. Federal Express requests the FAA to amend the NPRM to expressly exclude cargo-only airplanes. The FAA agrees with the commenters' recommendations that the equipment requirements be determined by the number of seats. The FAA has changed the final rule in Secs. 91.223 and 135.154 so that the words ``type-certificated to have six or more passenger seats'' are changed to ``configured with six or more passenger seats.'' In response to Federal Express and others who state that passenger-carrying planes converted to cargo planes should not have to comply with the rule, the FAA partially agrees in that if the airplane (cargo carrying or not) is configured with fewer than 6 passenger seats and is operating under part 91, then TAWS is not required. However, for operations conducted under part 121 (cargo carrying or not), TAWS is required regardless of the number of passenger seats. Under existing rules, the FAA requires GPWS for part 121 regardless of the number of seats and is continuing to maintain the same safety standard….” Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Has anybody thought about the arrival of 91.233 on March 29, 2005? This new regulation requires a Terrain Awareness Warning System on every turbine powered airplane with more than six passenger seats. There is an exception for skydiving airplanes, but only when they are within 50 miles of the point where the operation began. That makes it easy to conduct skydiving operations without the TAWS, but what can an operator do about positioning flights? Has anybody put any thought into this issue? § 91.223 Terrain awareness and warning system. (a) Airplanes manufactured after March 29, 2002. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a turbine-powered U.S.-registered airplane configured with six or more passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, unless that airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that as a minimum meets the requirements for Class B equipment in Technical Standard Order (TSO)–C151. (b) Airplanes manufactured on or before March 29, 2002. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a turbine-powered U.S.-registered airplane configured with six or more passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, after March 29, 2005, unless that airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that as a minimum meets the requirements for Class B equipment in Technical Standard Order (TSO)–C151. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120–0631) (c) Airplane Flight Manual. The Airplane Flight Manual shall contain appropriate procedures for— (1) The use of the terrain awareness and warning system; and (2) Proper flight crew reaction in response to the terrain awareness and warning system audio and visual warnings. (d) Exceptions. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to— (1) Parachuting operations when conducted entirely within a 50 nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operations began. (2) Firefighting operations. (3) Flight operations when incident to the aerial application of chemicals and other substances. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Generally, yes, but not always. On the conventional level 1-3 AFF jumps there is no release, and I'm assuming that's what you are thinking about as a static line substitute or enhancement. The exit is mostly easy, but when it gets ugly, man is it ugly. My very worst student was a transfer from the SL program (struggling with stability at the 10 second point), who gave me the ride of my life right from exit. I swore he was an evaluator just testing me. Damn, did I work. That's the kind of problem that happens and requires the best of the best. If I hadn't been at the top of my game, that guy would have spun into the ground (he needed help all the way down, including assistance with the pull). Your suggestion of comparing unstable static line jumps with out assistance, to harness hold jumps with not-ready-for-AFF instructors fails to include the better option...actual AFF instructors. I don't believe it CAN'T be done, but rather think it is a matter of economics. How much is a life (and quality training) worth, and how do we structure a program to bring the necessary resources to the table. It may be that drop zones need to increase the cost of tandem jumps to subsidize the training and pay of their AFF staff, but certainly there is an economic solution. Heck, the costs of SL training haven't kept up with inflation in the 25 years since I made my first SL jump, so perhaps we need to think about raising those rates to pay for better training. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy