tombuch

You might not see another parachute below you. Your flight pattern might confuse a low time jumper waiting for the next load who might then fly the landing your way and cause a problem. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

The specific regulation is 61.113(a) and is available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e8de1204833b8f039ad822eb060371c1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.5.1.8&idno=14. The key phrase is: The important thing to consider is that nobody can be paying for the flight, and the pilot may not be paid. The FAA also tends to look at if the operation is "holding out to the public," or making the activity available on more than a limited basis. A commercial pilot should be able to discuss the concept of a hold out and how the FAA interprets it to mean services are offered to "more than a few." Some pilots look for gray areas in this regulation, but the FAA does not see much gray. To the FAA, if the operation is collecting any money, the pilot is paid in any way including flight time, or the general public is involved, then the flight requires a commercial pilot. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

What would stop would be legal actions from the poor who would be unable to risk loosing more than they own. Thus, you would have a court system that continues to provide access to the wealthy (at a cost), but prevents court access for the poor. Improved definitions of negligence and gross negligence, coupled with better charges to a jury would be more helpful. Perhaps it might also make more sense to have money related issues handled by a professional judge who can deliver a more consistent series of decisions. A jury is a reasonable decision making body when criminal or liberty issues are at stake, but complex litigation might be better handled by a solo judge. The right to sue is assured to every citizen and is one of the ways individuals are able to protect themselves from big business and government. Eliminating that right would make us far less free. Tom Buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

The article that started this thread was amazing! For anybody who hasn’t checked it out, do click on the link and read it. Now, onto the above quote from mark135. This issue has been discussed more times on drop zone.com than I can count, yet the message of accuracy always seems to get lost. This notion of ‘some number of jumps being equal to some number of miles’ is an easy way to prove a point, but it never includes an accurate statistic, and there is never a source for the data. It always seems to be a number drawn out of a hat around a drop zone campfire someplace, and has no relationship to reality. If you are going to offer statistics, pleas include a source. The national driving fatality rate is 1.56 per 100 million vehicle miles, as listed in “2003 Injury Facts” compiled by the National Safety Council. That number is based on 2002 data. NSC also reports a driving fatality rate of 15.7 per 100,000 population. The national skydiving fatality rate is 25 per 2 million jumps, as reported by USPA for 2003. That’s 1,250 skydiving fatalities per 100 million jumps. USPA data also shows 25 jumpers died among 32,628 USPA members, giving a fatality rate of about 77 fatalities per 100,000 population. Here is another way to look at USPA data from last year: We had 1 fatality for every 1,100 members, and 1 fatality for every 83,468 jumps. Sorry about hijacking the thread, but inaccurate numbers should not be allowed to stand without comment. Now, click on http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2004-04-22/feature.html/1/index.html and read an amazing article about Skydive Arizona. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) S&TA Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Yup, I'm a member. AOPA is probably the best general aviation advocacy groups by far. They have more members than USPA, and those members are more affluent. The AOPA membership is as passionate about flying as we are about skydiving, and we get major bang for their buck from AOPA. Some of the best things about AOPA are; their lobbying effort on behalf of all general aviation pilots (including jump pilots); the training they offer through special seminars, on-line programs, and the Air Safety Foundation; the communication offered through the monthly magazine; the advancement of GA through recruitment of new student pilots and the efforts of Flight Training Magazine. AOPA is a key organization for the future of general aviation and that includes skydiving. While some of the objectives of AOPA and USPA are different, many are shared, and USPA has a solid relationship with AOPA to help advance our cause as skydivers. In fact, I've recently been in touch with AOPA about a key GPS issue that matters to all skydivers, and they are keen to focus resources to help us out where our interest as skydivers overlap with pilot issues. Membership is not limited to pilots and costs just $39.00 per year, well worth it for AOPA Pilot Magazine alone, but worth so much more with the additional services and support the organization offers. Check out the AOPA web site at http://www.aopa.org, and check out the membership application at https://www.aopa.org/join/join.cfm?type=domestic Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) Commercial Pilot (IAMSEL,G) Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Actually, in the USA an "A" license is free. An instructor administers the tests then signs and stamps the yellow card. That is a complete and valid "A" license. The 20.00 fee is just if you want to get a number and register the license with USPA, and while that may be required by a local DZ, it is not required by USPA. Tom Buchanan A-7349 Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

What a great and simple piece of investigation! Right on Remster! -tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

It sounds like a cosmetic problem more than anything else. If I'm reading your description correctly, it sounds like the fold is in the wrong direction. I wouldn't sweat the problem, and you probably shouldn't think your life was in danger. My guess the rig either came from the manufacturer that way (if new) or was modified at some point if it is a used rig. It shouldn't be a big deal You said you bought the rig from Square One. They have a great reputation and will probably be happy to examine the rig and make whatever repairs are necessary to make it safe. Give them a chance to make it right, and heck, Diablopilot made a fine offer to assist. Oh yeah, if they do take care of you, please let us know. Good news about good service is always appreciated. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) Senior Parachute Rigger Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

My vote is no, don't sue, at least based on the situation as I know it from your post. There is a chain of events that resulted in this accident, and it appears that the links in that chain were under the jumpers control. First link was the malfunction. According to your post, your wife is an instructor. She should have opened the rig and inspected the new parachute herself prior to making any jumps as the owner/user. You say this was the first jump on a new rig, and I believe that jumping a rig "out of the box" is inappropriate. Failure to inspect the rig is your wifes fault. The assessment would be different if your wife was a new jumper without any understanding of how to inspect a rig. The second link, it appears, is a failure to correct whatever the malfunction was. You didn't offer enough detail here regarding the type of problem, the altitudes involved, or what your wife did to fix the problem. Given that it was a new rig, your wife had the opportunity to open a bit higher than usual to allow for any problems. You are not clear if she did this or not, or even if a cutaway was the best option given the nature of the problem. For example, a stuck toggle can often be handled by landing the parachute, assuming it can be flown safely in that configuration. Now obviously this isn't always true, but you haven't given me enough information to determine what the initial problem was or what other actions might have been available. Third link was a failure of the cutaway system. You have not explained why this failed. A standard three ring system is easy to inspect. Given that this was a new rig your wife should have checked the system completely. Was the failure of the three ring something that should have been noticed in a prejump inspection? I would not expect a student to find many three ring errors, but I would expect that of an instructor. The fourth link was the entanglement. I don't think your wife had any real options here, although she might have. It's tough to evaluate on the basis of your posts so far. You should also consider the history of the manufactrer. If this is a one time unanticipated problem it is unreasonable to hold the manufacturer responsible. If, on the other hand, the manufactrer had multiple reports of the same problem causing fatalities and decided not to correct the root cause, not to improve in-house inspections, and not to share the problem with the public, then you might have a different issue. Your post indicates this was a new rig and I doubt the manufacturer has yet established a history of negligince. The accident, although tragic, was the result of several factors, many of which your wife had control over. If this was a student jump on a new, uninspected rig, I think the student might have grounds to sue, but your wife should know better and should be responsible for identifying the problems that caused this accident. You mention a concern about a new rig and new manufacturer and a desire to alert the skydiving community. Your desire to fix the problem is noble, but you have failed to identify specifically what went wrong, why, or when. It would be far better to share the name of the manufacturer and photos of the failed three ring system so others can identify the problem before they too have malfunctions. I hope this matter has been investigated by your S&TA and that he is taking action to alert the skydiving community. If Many years ago I had an accident that resulted in, among other things, a broken back. As I was wheeled into my hospital room a nurse started asking questions from an intake form. One of those questions was "Is there anybody you can sue." I understood the hospital was just looking for a financial stake holder who would be responsible for the costs of my treatment. Financials may ultimately drive your decision, although they shouldn't. For the rest of us, it's important to understand that when a jumper is hurt there are huge medical bills. Those bills may push a person to consider litigation even when they otherwise might oppose the idea. Likewise, a medical provider or other party with a financial stake in the matter (the holder of a loan) might drive a decision to sue. A jumper on solid financial footing may be less likely to litigate for recovery. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) S&TA Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Is this bit true? I don't know if it is, I haven't seen the specific legislation, but I thought it _had_ to be an FAA rigger If the rig is UNapproved it can be packed in any country by anybody who is authorized to pack it in the owners nation of citizenship. If it is an APPROVED parachute system it may be packed in any country, but for use in the USA it must be packed by a FAA rigger, not an equivalent. Please see the abstract of the proposal and final rule posted here on dropzone at: http://www.dropzone.com/features/GearRegulationsforParach.shtml The end of the abstract has links to the actual regulation. The FAA has changed their data system so their link doesn't provide a direct connection to the regulation anymore. To use the FAA link, follow the link, then click on Title 14, then select FAR 105.49. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) S&TA Senior Parachute Rigger Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

A long time ago I was working for a student newspaper when a guy came in and offered a free skydive if we would do a story about his drop zone. I jumped at the opportunity. That guy was George Woods, and he changed my life. Other instructors followed, and each added to my experience and skill level, and each instructor further enhanced my enjoyment of life. I was pulled to become an instructor because I so valued what others had done for me. I felt a command to share my love of this sport with others. I felt a command to pass along the thrills and the self confidence this sport had offered me. I have always felt the importance of giving back, and passing along. Teaching and sharing skydiving has enhanced my life as much as it has enhanced the lives of my students. It matters. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) S&TA Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

See this elsewhere on the dropzone site: http://www.dropzone.com/features/GearRegulationsforParach.shtml Many drop zones do not know about or understand the regulation, and many don't bother enforcing it. Check directly with the DZ you are expecting to visit. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) Senior Parachute Rigger S&TA Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I think as long as the instructors continued to try and reach him safely until they reached their required pull altitude the issue would not be as described in the SCUBA case. If, on the other hand the first instructor let go because of instability (as briefed in the AFF instructor course) and the second instructor then released to join the first for some fun RW, there would be a problem. Likewise, if the student hadn't been trained in how to deal with instability or the loss of both jumpmasters, there would be a problem. A student should be provided with the training, tools, and supervision needed to make their jumps as safely as possible. If we fail to train them, don't adequately equip them, or choose to leave them alone in freefall, then we are wrong. I think we owe our students a duty of care, not perfection. Follow the rules, follow national standards, use reasonable care. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) S&TA Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Check the Cypres site at http://www.cypres-usa.com/cyp16.htm The quote below is from their FAQ and while written in 1995, it remains on their site today. While the replacement cycle is technically listed as being from date of installation, it is important that the battery be fresh. I would avoid installing old batteries that have been on the shelf for a while. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) S&TA Senior Parachute Rigger Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

You have asked two questions here. First, should USPA provide additional guidance, and second, should there be a BSR for wingsuits. I think USPA already provides a reasonable amount of overview guidance with regard to wingsuits. More wouldn't hurt as part of the SIM, but it isn't necessary and can be as easily provided by local drop zones, training centers, manufacturers, etc. A BSR seems to be unnecessary given the limited nature of wingsuit flight, the specific experience of the people flying wingsuits, and the overall safety record of wingsuits. Back in the day we actually had a BSR that prohibited "batwings," an early version of a wingsuit that used solid wings. There were problems with those contraptions and a BSR was written. As the popularity of batwings decreased the BSR was removed. Now, USPA has a better process of providing guidance through the SIM. I would like the BSR's to remain focused on the basics, and especially targeted toward minimum standards for student operations that involve a hold out to the general public. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) S&TA Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

From the news account it looks like Pietroluongo had contracted to participate in a dive operation in a man made dive park. There were two instructors and two clients, a combination that allowed for a standard "buddy" system of protection. When the student had problems both instructors assisted the student to the surface, thus abandoning the experienced diver and leaving him under 66 feet of water without a support buddy. When that diver had problems under water he had nobody to assist him.The buddy system is a worldwide standard in the SCUBA industry and is designed to prevent just this kind of problem. It sounds like the standard was ignored in this case, however briefly. It sounds to me (based just on the news story) like the dive company had a duty to provide support and didn't do that. Sure, a diver of this experience should be able to handle any problem, but the dive company also has a responsibility to the client. We should all think about these issues as they apply to the skydiving world, and especially to student operations. When we contract to provide a service we have a duty to provide that service. Simply saying "the dead guy signed a waiver" isn't enough. When there are clear standards, we must meet those standards. The other issue here is the enforcebility of a waiver, and the ability of a person to sign away the rights of another person. It sounds like the court is saying that the client does have a right to sign away his own right to sue, but he can not sign away the rights of others. I recall another case in a different state where a parent signed a release on behalf of a minor. In that case the parent had given up the right to sue, but the release could not be used to deny the other parent of the right to sue. The Relative Workshop presented an interesting read of this kind of liability law when commenting on taking minors for tandem rides. The RWS position even mentioned that if a minor is injured and the parent signed a waiver, the minor could retain the right to sue and do so when reaching the age of majority, even if the waiver is interpreted to clearly restrict the signing parents right to sue. While the SCUBA case only applies in Pennsylvania, the concepts should be of concern to us all. The protection offered by a waiver of liability will vary from state to state, and it may not provide the level of protection that we expect. It is also important to understand that skydiving releases generally protect the drop zone as well as the individual staff members, instructors, and other participants. If the waiver is found to be unenforceable in a case against the drop zone, then the protection probably doesn't extend to the individual instructors. There may be some protection if the individual is an employee of a corporation, but it seems like most skydiving professionals are independent contractors. Absent a binding release of liability those contractors could be at greater risk. Something to think about. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) S&TA NOT A LAWYER Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Peas means the gravel pit, usually a circle, that serves as a target. The gravel should be a small round type that resembles peas. A funnel is when a formation implodes on itself. Imagine a 12 person flat flying formation being pushed to center with all the jumpers being crushed on top of each other...the whole mess tends to fall inward kinda fast, sort of like everybody being dumped down the center core of a funnel. Usually everybody stables out without problem. Funnels were really common back in the day, but our flying is so much smoother now that they don't happen as regularly, nor with as much force. They still do happen, so you will hear the term and will probably even experience a few later in your skydiving. The term 'funnel' can even be applied small formations like two ways, but a 'real' funnel requires a lot of people. I included a comprehensive glossary in my book JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy, and there is a also a really good free glossary on this site at http://www.dropzone.com/safety/resources/handbook/gloss2.shtml Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Never considered it. There are some rigs with three parachutes that are used for intentional cutaways. That's the only way I would pack a malfunction by intent. When I earned my first tandem rating the manufacturer required that every candidate have had at least one cutaway. Most of those who applied for the rating had at least one serious malfunction in the general course of their skydiving, but those that hadn't were required to borrow a cutaway rig and actually chop a main parachute for real. My suggestion for you...DON'T pack an intentional malfunction. If you are concerned about your ability to handle a malfunction, or you want extra training, spend some more time in a malfunction harness. There are also a few drop zones that have a simulator called the SportParaSim that offers virtual reality goggles coupled with a computer and cutaway harness. It's actually described and pictured in my book, JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy. SportParaSim is distributed by SSK Industries, the same people who distribute the Cypres. Your other option is to borrow a three parachute rig, but that is a very complicated system with many extra potential problems, and I'd suggest that you wait on it until you have a bunch more real skydives. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) S&TA Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

The client shouldn't need to do that. The default should be that a packer shouldn't change anything on a rig without discussing it with the owner. The same is true of a certificated rigger. That doesn't mean they shouldn't make safety related changes without permission, but they should at least mention the change when delivering the rig or settling the account. Not only is that a matter of respect, but it educates the customer. Heck, if a packer is doing extra work like changing out all the rubberbands, changing closing loops, checking and then coloring a pilot chute kill line, the customer will probably appreciate the extra work and is more likely to offer a tip. In this case it sounds like the rig was delivered in a condition directly opposed to manufacturers recommendations. The packer may not even know about the RWS loop standard, and discussing the change with the client would have educated one or both of them. Then too, experienced packers may be packing the main much tighter than the owner and the closing loop might be too long...that's a safety issue. The ideal solution is for the packer to simply say "hey, you loop was a bit long so I shortened it. It packs up better and is safer in the air." Respect gets respect, know what I mean? Also, let's keep in mind that at many DZ's the packers are not riggers and are not under the supervision of a rigger. Often they have little training and have never been checked out by anyone. If they have been checked out, their scope of practice is limited by whatever standard the specific supervising rigger has established. Tom Buchanan S&TA Senior Parachute Rigger Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Skiers do sue, and it is a major expense for the ski areas. There are a few states with a huge ski industry/lobby that have passed laws to specifically limit liability, but the resorts still get sued. USPA was part of an effort to get a similar bill passed in Virginia recently, and will be doing follow-up at a future legislative session. Laws like these will help the skydiving industry, but they are not consumer-friendly and are generally opposed by the legal community. It's tough to get these laws passed to protect a big industry like ski operators, and it's even tougher to pass them in support of tiny industries like skydiving. The biggest issue for ski resorts these days is the liability of snowboard/ski parks. Some resorts have eliminated these features entirely, some have restricted them to adults only, others are developing special waivers and video releases to further reduce liability. There is an especially serious challenge to waivers signed by a parent on behalf of a minor, and this issue is generating major headaches among resort managers. I should also point out that most ski areas are able to get liability insurance, although some have been moving toward self insurance due to the high cost of available policies. The customers on the slopes DO have a problem with recognizing the ticket waiver, and their level of disposable income has no bearing on their willingness to sue. Liability is a giant issue in the ski industry, and the insurance the resorts must purchase is a part of the ticket cost. Tom Buchanan AASI Certified Snowboard Instructor USPA Instructor (SL, IAD, Tandem, AFF) Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I think a 200 pound skydiver falling at 120 mph can do a lot more damage, as can a parachutist flying at 40-50 mph. Heck, we recently had a visiting jumper smash into a parked airplane and do more than 20,000 dollars in damage...can your model airplanes do that? Local governments are also concerned about being sued by the survivors of jumpers, and that is not a concern in your model airplane activity. The threat is that a jumper is killed and his survivors sue everybody associated with the activity, including the land owners. Municipal governments have an obligation to protect their constituents and budgets from frivolous litigation, and there is far more of that involved in skydiving than in model airplane flying. Tom Buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

So what happens if the airplane blows an engine at rotation? Will it still climb? Will it have enough runway to stop? My suggestion when computing runway length is to follows Quade's suggestion as follows: For everybody else...ask your pilots what they will do if they blow an engine at rotation on the runway they are now using. How much single-engine climb performance will they have with a full load of jumpers and full fuel on a hot day, and how much distance will they need to stop on the runway if they choose to abort following engine failure. At what point in the take off run do they need to make a commitment to fly? At what point in the take off run will they have enough airspeed to control a multiengine airplane on just one engine? Safety is all about planning for the worst case. I just don't think "lol" is the best response when a pilot is squeaking his flight off the runway with no room to spare. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) Commercial Pilot (IAMSEL,G) S&TA Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

What's the point of your rental program? Is it to make money on rental gear, or to sample product to potential customers and bridge young jumpers between student status and gear ownership? If your objective is to run a rental shop, then build a solid contract with lot's of secondary profit potential. If your objective is to support your customers, and the customers of your home drop zone, then consider the value of good will on your bottom line. The impact of extra charges will obviously be felt by a jumper who uses a reserve but will also be noticed by every jumper who rents your gear, and those who that jumper talks to. The shop that limits extra charges will be generating solid marketplace karma and may well be rewarded, or perhaps will even be 'well rewarded.' In the winter I work as a snowboard instructor at a mountain resort that thrives on great customer service. We have a "Serve it up, Fix it up" policy that drives guest satisfaction by doing whatever we can to "make things right." There is a resort wide budget for covering the costs of free lift tickets, meals, hotel nights, rental gear, damage repair (even to the guests own equipment), and any other little things that may be needed to sooth a less than perfect experience. The concept is to make sure our guests are happy, and every employee has the power to "fix it up" on the spot. Guest satisfaction keeps our customers coming back and drives positive word of mouth. The "Fix it up" program is an expense, but it builds business. A drop zone store is in direct competition with some huge mail order retailers. The element that distinguishes a local store from the national companies is great customer service and support. Service and empathy is especially important to the low-time segment of the market, and those jumpers are the biggest user of equipment rental services. ...just some thoughts to throw into the decision mix. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I think reserves and AAD's are designed to be used, and their use should be included in the rental agreement. It makes sense to charge for lost parts, if you are so inclined, but the repack or AAD maintenance should be covered by the cost of the rental. In practice, I think it is reasonable to expect a jumper to seek and find a main parachute after a cut-a-way, but it's a bit much to expect a customer to also track the freebag and handles. I think a service oriented dealer will also cover the cost of handles and freebag as part of the rental. It does seem reasonable for a dealer to request payment for the loss of a canopy, but only at the current market value. A borrowed rig is another matter. If I lend my rig to another jumper I expect that person to return it in the same condition as when taken. That means clean, all parts assembled and packed and ready for use. In reality I had a jumper use my rig and get dragged through the mud pretty big time. She offered to clean the rig and have it repacked, and I appreciated the offer. I'm a rigger and decided that since it was a loan to a friend and fellow jumper I would leave it "as is" for a few weeks and then wash and repack it myself. The other jumper again offered to pay for my services, but I declined. Your store should consider "friendly" support as part of your customer service policy. Keep in mind that the written agreement you hand a customer says alot about your values as a business person, and your interest in supporting your clients. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, tandem) Sr. Parachute Rigger Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

The story doesn't look that bad in total. In general, it is accurate and reflects what the public is thinking and saying. We may not always like what others are saying about us, but a reporter really can't ignore the open dialog. The writer digs up all the accusations and then gets a response from the Nelson's. It may not be a great advertisement, but overall it is balanced. I think Missy did a very solid job of presenting a positive spin on some ugly history. This paragraph is a bit of a problem. If we use his number of 3,300,000 jumps per year as reported by USPA, and an average of about 33 fatalities annualy which was the number being quoted when he wrote the article, then the national average is about 1 fatality per 100,000 jumps. The rate at SDU is reported as 1:75,000, and that is higher than the national average, but not double the national rate. My hunch is that the large number of transient jumpers coupled with the cutting edge nature of the drop zone have created an elevated fatality rate. Likewise, the DZ had a great safety record for a while and was then hit with a run of very bad luck. Statistics can be easily influenced when the total number of fatalities is so low, and I think that's also part of the SDU story. Overall, the writer did a reasonable job of research and balanced his feature. BTW, I believe was interviewed via email by this reporter about general skydiving and safety issues, as well as my limited experience at SDU, perhaps as background. I believe the writer was also looking at posting here and on rec.skydiving. My quotes were not used. Tom Buchanan Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy