tombuch

The video didn't work for me. The rejection message was Back in the day most drop zones and instructors would do all they could to make their students jump. Now, we understand that no really means no, and we respect the anxiety of our customers. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

No. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

It sounds like this guy has competing interests, and that’s pretty normal in life. It also sounds like the plaintiff here is an organization of property owners, and not an individual skydiver. Likewise the legal action is against an individual business, and not the industry as a whole (although there is an assertion that a victory by the property owners could have negative impacts nationwide). I don’t like what I’m hearing, and if I ran the other drop zone where this skydiver is jumping I might apply some pressure or not let him jump at by business. However, based on what I’ve read here (so far) USPA shouldn’t be in a position of prohibiting this individual member from exercising his rights within the judicial system, or prohibit him from taking actions which he believes to be in his financial interest. Nor should he be penalized as an individual for the legal actions of an organization to which he belongs. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

When my parachute slammed into high voltage power lines at night and collapsed I was thinking “Oh fuck, crap, fuck, fuck, fuck. I fucked up. Fuck it, crap, I fucked up.” Then I hit the ground and was instantly paralyzed as the power lines slapped together, threatening to fall and electrocute me. My thoughts at that moment were “Oh fucking crap. I really fucked up but I might get out alive. Oh fuck I can’t move. Crap. Fucking crap.” It just went on like that until the power lines stopped slamming together and I recovered enough to move my arms and legs, then I just wanted to take off the jump suit and rig so they wouldn’t be cut by the rescue squad. If I had a long time till impact, as in the lack of a rig scenario suggested here, I’d probably start by thinking how I had screwed up, then track like a madman straight at the ground wondering if it was going to hurt. As I got really close, the ground rush would probably make me smile, and I’d be thinking about how my heart was racing, and how friggin fast I was moving. Then in the last few seconds I’d be working super hard to stay streamlined so I slammed in fast enough so that hopefully it wouldn’t hurt. I don’t know, that’s just my guess as to how it might play out. But heck, I might pee in my pants and cry all the way down. I hope it never happens, but if it does I promise to write a mushy post about my innermost feelings and share it with the world…oh wait, I can’t do that. Crap. Stay safe in Iraq.

...just a story from the Brattleboro (Vermont) Reformer about a women making a jump to raise money to fight cancer... The original is at http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_12535397 Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

For anybody that cares, I think this thread is being hijacked to another take on Duanesburg Skydiving, a drop zone just outside of Albany, New York, that is owned by Bob Rawlins. I did not do any of my training there, although I was an active jumper and instructor at the DZ many years ago. Last year Mr. Rawlins flew a load in a Cessna 182 from which an observer, who was not wearing a parachute, committed suicide by jumping from the open door just after a tandem pair left the aircraft. (The thread from that accident is available at: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3232310;#3232310. A second thread is at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3234974;page=unread#unread. Mr. Rawlins held only a private pilot license, and a commercial certificate is required for this kind of operation. The observer was sitting on the floor adjacent to the open door, and was not equipped with a parachute of any kind. The observer was not on board to participate in skydiving but according to witnesses had stated his intent was simply take pictures of the countryside, and thus his participation clearly did not meet the standard of “engaging in sport parachuting” required to use the floor as a seat. While those violations were obvious, there were even more violations uncovered through the FAA investigation. Mr Rawlins should not have been surprised by the FAA enforcement action that followed. In 1994 he had his private pilot certificate suspended for flying jumpers without a commercial certificate (NTSB Order EA-4583). Certainly he knew better. The NTSB, FAA, and USPA have been working together to improve industry safety, and especially safety related to pilots and flight operations. In fact, NTSB issued a Special Investigation Report on the Safety of Parachute Jump Operations on September 16, 2008, and compelled USPA to take an aggressive stand to head off increased regulations. We must learn to work together as an industry, and join with the FAA and NTSB to eliminate obvious violations. A “circle the wagons” approach when a rouge operator is identified is not in the interest of the industry, and is disrespectful toward the general public from which we draw our customers. The FAA called me as an expert witness to testify as to the reputation of Duanesburg Skydiving, and testify as to industry standards. The case was set for trial before the NTSB on May 13-14, 2009, but it was settled about a month before trial with the revocation of Mr. Rawlins pilot certificate. Let there be no mistake, what Mr. Rawlins did was a violation of FAA regulations, it was part of a continuing series of violations that had extended over many years, and he had been warned well in advance. The revocation of his certificate should make clear that the FAA will not tolerate private pilots flying jumpers (other than in very, very, very limited situations). USPA has also taken a stand here and rejected the use of private pilots flying jumpers in a “Gearing Up” column by USPA Executive Director Ed Scott in the October 2008 Parachutist. It is my very strongly held belief that jump pilots should hold a commercial certificate, and the law supports that position. I do not dispute the flying skills of Mr. Rawlins, but FAA regulations specify a commercial certificate is required for this kind of operation. Ignoring this (and the other violations) following a fatality that drew such wide public scrutiny would have established a precedent that other DZ’s could have used to allow less experienced private pilots to fly jumpers. That would have placed other jumpers at risk, and would have been harmful to the industry. I have a continuing interest in improving safety within the sport, and will not tolerate operators that put others at risk, or that threaten to weaken important regulations and standards that keep us safe. I am especially intolerant of violations that affect students and the general public, and in the case cited above, a student was on board the aircraft and deserved an operation that met federal standards. The violations in this case were flagrant, and the potential harm to industry safety was great. I stand proud of my willingness to work with the FAA to bring action against a rouge operation and a pilot who obviously knew better. And although I harbor no ill will toward Mr. Rawlins, I am pleased that he had his certificate revoked. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I think we ought to have a great deal of pride in how far our sport has come, and the wings certainly reflect that pathway. It is only by recognizing the history we share with those who came before us, that we can build a new future for those who will follow. I embrace the wings and the men (and just a few brave and enterprising women) who blazed trails and built the sport, and then handed it off to my generation in the 1970's and 1980's. Let's not make major changes to the logo that has served us so well. Little tweaks are fine, but we should keep the basic design that connects us to the past, and see that as a springboard to the future. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

That's friggin' cool and made me smile. Thanks for the point out. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Might you also use the site to determine that there isn't a reasonable case? I've received several calls from lawyers who got my name from this site. In each case they had a client who wanted to bring an action against a drop zone. They identified me from the drop zone site, and choose me as a contact because of my reasoned posts and credentials. They called me to help them better understand the sport, and to help them determine if there was a argument that would carry the case. If the case was weak the lawyer would choose to decline the business, rather than spend hours and dollars on contingency. Of the cases I've been asked about, all but one were very weak, and the phone conversation was enough to convince the lawyer to decline the job. The only incident that I thought had merit was probably handled by another expert. So yes, lawyers do use the site as part of their research, and that isn't all bad. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I think his position is that FAA wants to stop regulating us, but USPA is actively keeping them involved. If I understand his rant correctly, he believes that if USPA went away FAA would stop regulating skydiving and we could then do whatever we choose. That would be a really, really bad outcome. Right now the FAA occupies the regulatory landscape at a minimal level and preempts most state regulation. If the FAA somehow stepped out of that role (and I doubt they would choose to do that) the states would be free to step in. We would be left with as many as fifty different state-level regulatory bodies, all asserting differing levels of control, and making up their own standards for equipment, licensing, training, and behavior. It would be chaos. It's much better for us to have a single major player in the regulatory arena, and then deal with the limited actions available to the states. And of course FAA is willing to yield to USPA policy in most areas, so we have a pretty good deal. USPA does a good job of working with the FAA within a federal regulatory framework, and USPA does an outstanding job of keeping state regulation at bay. Nothing is ever perfect, but USPA Government Affairs is one of the places where I really believe I'm getting my money's worth. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Relax just a bit and try to stop thinking about skydiving...that's almost impossible, I know, but try. And enjoy your next tandem. Asking your instructor to make it a working tandem is a good idea. That will help you better understand the ground instruction in AFF. If you can have an AFF instructor do that tandem, it'll help even more, and if you can then do your actual AFF jump with that same instructor, gosh will you be doing killer-well. Blue skies, Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

His membership was revoked. See the very long thread at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3550597;page=unread#unread. If you read the whole thing you will get a better sense of what happened, and why he hates USPA, but you probably won't buy into his appeal. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

He has every right to be involved, and I'm glad he learned what a cut is. Back in the day when we all made most of our jumps from a Cessna and had to climb out onto the wing strut, it was common for the pilot to maintain power until the last possible moment. The jumper leaning out the door would turn to the pilot and call "CUT" just before exit and the pilot would pull the power back so it would be easier for everybody to get out into the wind. That procedure continued through to big jump planes and held for a while. Now, many jump pilots prefer to configure the airplane on their own, including the cut (if there is one), so at many drop zones the jumpers don't even know it's happening. Heck, back in the day many jump pilots would pull power back to idle and we would hear the stall horn blaring. Hopefully that isn't happening anymore! One of the other things to consider about Cessna jumps is that the rate of climb diminishes at higher altitudes so the nose of the aircraft is held relatively low before jumprun, and there is little pitch change for exit. A jumper from a Cessna DZ visiting a turbine airport may not understand that a pitch change is normal and expected, or what various configuration changes might look and feel like. A good skydiver training program will introduce students to basic aircraft operations, usually in Category "e," but some of the discussion will occur in other categories as well. Ideally aircraft operations training will be conducted by a jump pilot, but it often isn't the case. The aircraft briefing in the USPA 2008 SIM (page 69) does not discuss a cut and it is not in the glossary, so it may not be a familiar term or even a concept to many low-time jumpers. That's especially true of Cessna jumpers, and can be true of big turbine drop zones where low-time jumpers are sometimes just taught to look for the green light and go. This is an interesting and important discussion for instructors, because we need to understand that when a student is trained we must anticipate that they will travel around, and should help them learn about the different procedures they will encounter. Likewise, when instructors brief a visiting jumper we should be aware of the kind of aircraft they have been jumping, and offer solid "differences" training. And we should be aware that a low-time jumper visiting a new DZ will often be overloaded with new experiences and may have a hard time taking it all in and adjusting. It can really be frightening for a beginner! With that in mind, lets remember that if a student failed to learn, the instructor failed to teach, and that applies to advanced briefings of experienced jumpers given by non-instructors too. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

As I understand it, the aircraft could have easily been configured to to reduce the risk of injury. The defendant operated the aircraft at a high angle of attack (AOA) to conserve fuel and reduce turn-around times, both elements that would have served to increase the profitability of the accident flight. That action also increased the risk imposed upon the injured jumper, and the rest of the jumpers remaining in the aircraft. While the injured jumper had some skydiving experience, he did not likely have sufficient experience to fully understand the risk or the potential remedy, or he had insufficient skill to implement the proposed remedy. In any case, it appears that the accident could have been prevented if the defendant had operated the aircraft at a lower AOA. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

There is an lively discussion thread after the article. It's mostly positive voices. See it at http://forums.poconorecord.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=pr-news&tid=14198. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I’m intrigued by the argument that skydiving safety is preempted by federal law. As I understand the motion to dismiss uploaded by “TheCapt” (post 92 in this thread), Strong is arguing that since the federal government regulates skydiving, there can be no claim for injury under state law because that would essentially establish the possibility of 50 separate standards of care, all potentially in conflict with the national standard. Does anybody know if this is a common argument in skydiving liability cases, or is Strong raising a unique point here? Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I'd love to read the article. Is this company recruiting 'wild and crazy' extreme sports nuts who will do anything and take any risk necessary to have some fun, or are they recruiting experienced practitioners of extreme sports who understand how to minimize risk while pushing their sports further? Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I think what that means is that if you are jumping at an airport without a control tower you need permission, and if you don't have permission you may still jump above that airport and drift above the traffic pattern. I think (and I may be wrong in my reading of the regulation) that (c) is related to (b), and it would be better written with (c) indented and listed as sub one. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I kinda understand your point. That is that a pilot who is overflying the security area shouldn't need a security clearance, just as a pilot who is overflying class bravo airspace doesn't need to meet most of the class B requirements. You want the computer program to recognize that a flight plan above a certain altitude over a specific temporary block of airspace shouldn't require pilot information, but that a flight plan within that temporary block of airspace should. That does make sense, but when I put myself in the FAA's shoes I wonder what would happen if that pilot descended by a thousand feet and is now in the security area. For example, suppose the ceiling came down and the pilot needed a lower altitude, or ATC needed to get the jump plane in a bit lower for traffic management. Then what? How would ATC know the pilot was OK above the security zone, but not OK within the security zone? Should ATC and TSA even need to worry about such things? It seems from a traffic management standpoint it makes sense to standardize the requirements. That way ATC and TSA know that the aircraft and all of the jumpers are authorized over or into the security area, and it reduces confusion. Sure, the requirement for pilot information locks you into a specific pilot, and some pilots probably don't want to put their detail on file, but flying over a stadium or secure area isn't a constitutional right, it's an extension of the privilege of flight. I know that's not what you want to hear, but it's a reasonable way to approach the issue. The FAA or TSA aren't necessarily being nasty just because they don't see it your way. And USPA isn't being belligerent and unhelpful just because they don't view the issue in black and white, or because they consider it an issue that might take more effort on USPA's and FAA's part to redefine, and the time/energy would be better spent on other matters. Or perhaps USPA, TSA, or FAA just didn't understand the way you were explaining the issue. Be nice and friendly, allow lots of time for changes to be worked through, and know the system is much bigger than you and me. It's a giant playground up there, and the sky offers plenty of space for us all, but we still gotta get along. As for being ejected from USPA. Please understand that FAA expended lots of effort dealing with you and your hostile/threatening approach. USPA is trying very hard to build a relationship with FAA and TSA based on professionalism and trust. Your tantrum sounds like it ripped through multi-layers of FAA bureaucracy, and probably destroyed years of effort to get officials to recognize us as professionals. I can just imagine the back channel communications that went on between USPA and FAA to regain control of this issue. You probably burned your own bridge, but I hope the efforts of USPA to put out the fire you started have saved the bridge the rest of us need every day. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

My two older PD reserves came with instruction manuals showing the flat method. The first was a PD 143R manufactured in December 1992. The second was a PD 126R manufactured in September 1996. The manual from 1992 does not mention Pro Packing at all. The manual from 1996 includes this disclaimer: "If the rig manufacturer specifies a packing method other than the one shown, and the rig manufacturer specifically authorizes its use for this parachute you may decide which instructions to follow. Otherwise you must follow these instructions. These reserves have been tested and found to work well using both this method and a specific, neatly organized, Pro Pack method for reserves. However, Performance Designs, Inc. does not recommend the use of the Pro Pack method, because if done incorrectly there is a greater risk of malfunction." The manuals for my Saber's manufactured and delivered in 1992 and 1996 both show and describe the Pro Pack method (obviously these are main parachutes). I also have an undated manual from my Excalibur 150 that shows the Pro Pack method (also a main). That XCal began service (according to my log books) in September 1989. I have an old manual from a Javelin that shows a revision date of 1988. That manual deals heavily with round reserves, and then covers squares. It mentions both flat and Pro Packing without stating a preference. The flat pack was described as "conventional." I also have a Javelin manual with a revision date of 1993 that includes the following statement: [I]"If the manufacturer of the ram air reserve canopy uses a "conventional" packing method, the canopy should look similar to [U]FIG 1[/U] after it has been flaked and folded. If the manufacturer of the ram air reserve canopy recommends the "PRO-PACK", the canopy will resemble [U]FIG.2[/U]. [B]SUN PATH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS THE "PRO-PACK" FOR ALL RAM-AIR RESERVES PACKED INTO THE JAVELIN HARNESS/CONTAINER SYSTEM.[/B]"[/I] (Emphasis in original) As I recall, the Pro Pack method came into the public domain sometime in the late 1980's, and was quickly embraced around the major DZ's. However, it was shunned by local riggers at the smaller DZ's, and I'm guessing that's why PD was so reluctant to embrace the method early on. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I don't know what you did, or how this issue really played out, but I gotta go to bat for USPA Government Relations. I've been dealing with that office for a while, and the jumper/pilot who is in the position now is awesome! He does have a lot on his plate, and he may need to triage a bit, but he is working tirelessly to build relationships with the FAA and to represent our issues. If he didn't jump on your problem as soon as 'yesterday' you need to chill. And I'd suggest you make a secondary contact with AOPA, since pilots fall in their domain. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

That's pretty nuts. As a military jet pilot he already gets regular training on ejection, parachute flight, and survival. He has many of the skills needed for civilian canopy flight, and lots of those skills are easily transferable. BUT, flying a round parachute after an ejection is a whole lot different than flying a square and navigating safely to a preselected landing zone. That guy didn't need the full on canopy control course, be he did need a refresher and "differences" training. When I deal with pilots, especially those who routinely fly with emergency parachutes, it's important that they understand how sport training differs from survival training. They often appreciate knowing how our training will apply to an emergency, and how it won't. And it helps when they understand that 4,800 jumps ago I was flying military surplus round T-10's. I really like teaching pilots, even military jet pilots who land at night on carrier. Really, I do. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I'm not a doctor or lawyer, however, it sounds like the insurance company may be entitled to the exclusion in this case. Check with a doctor regarding official cause of death, and a lawyer to determine if skydiving could be considered a proximate cause. Skydiving adds significant stresses to the body, and those event-specific stresses may have been the cause of a heart attack (or you said possibly a brain aneurysm). Specifically, skydiving is a mentally and physically stressful activity, it often takes place in hot temperatures with restrictive and heavy clothing and equipment, and it involves exposure to a reduced oxygen environment. These are factors which can certainly lead to a heart attack. I imagine that the opening shock of a parachute might cause a clot to fracture and break free, but that's pure conjecture on my part. In any event, the death sounds like it occurred while skydiving, and there is a specific exclusion in his policy. I'll say again, check with a doctor and lawyer. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Yes. Everything you mentioned does make sense. Piloting an airplane is very much like piloting a parachute. I'm also a glider pilot, and the similarities are even closer. The other thing that transfers really well is a pilots focus on safety and procedures, and a philosophy of always leaving yourself an out. I find the mental side of skydiving and piloting aircraft are exactly the same. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I've taken a couple of issues to USPA and FAA, and haven't been blackballed at all. Of course the people at the DZ's involved weren't happy, but the folks I jump with recognized that bad operators are not good for the sport. I spent the first part of my career afraid to say anything, but along the way I lost too many friends, and saw too many whuffos subjected to extraordinary risk. Now, I'm afraid NOT to say anything. I never again want to be in the position of saying "somebody should have done something" only to realize after the fact that I am a somebody. Safety is a shared responsibility. My first inclination is to work with the individuals and if that doesn't result in change (or a more favorable understanding on my part) I'll take the issue to USPA. If USPA is unwilling or unable to address the issue, then I'll follow-up with the FAA seeking a friendly and supportive call to the offending person/DZ. Generally, the first thing the FAA will do is an informal contact, and if that isn't successful they'll take official action. It's almost always better if the issue can be handled early in the process, rather than late, but late is certainly better than never. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy