fasted3

Great points. Let me give them a shot. I can see the value in that for big ways, where a certain canopy experience level is expected. But for the average weekend day at the average dz? Or for a boogie? Don't see it working so well. Why? Because the jumpers wouldn't understand the rule, or because they would ignore it? I think this is doable just by assigning one guy to hold the arrow on variable wind days and watch people land. Usually there is somebody out looking anyway. What if the wind direction changes while people are landing? That is for the person holding the arrow to decide, based on whether people are committing to landing or not. Once they are the arrow should remain in place. What if it isn't changed and someone gets hurt landing downwind? On a light wind day? That is the only time this would come into play, and people coming in to the main landing area should be able to deal with a light downwinder anyway. What if 2 people collide? They get hurt too. Far too many openings for liability for the dz and the person tasked with pointing the arrow. Perhaps, but my points were made more to avoid collisions than lawsuits. Why not be a big grown up skydiver and determine for yourself which way you want to land? Because when I'm landing in the main landing area at most DZ's I don't get to choose the landing direction. I do the adult thing and follow the rules. Of course I can land somewhere else; I often do. I said I've seen this happening, not that I participated in it. Speak up and preplan a landing direction with the others on your load - before you get on the airplane. Hmm, didn't you just call me on what if the wind changes while people are landing? What happens if it changes in the 20 minutes that will elapse before you land? Fly your canopy such that no one else will be on final when you are and it shouldn't be an issue anyway Yep, just trying to add a link to the chain of safety. Refuse to be in the air with people that you know are sketchy under canopy, or in chaotic situations (ie boogies). Sounds like good advice. Probably won't be following it. Am I responsible for my safety or not? I think I am, and that includes choosing the place and direction that I think is the safest for me to land. I agree. If you and I both choose to land in the main landing area may we both be going in the same direction?

I'd call it a wide sweeping solution looking for a problem. Are we overrun with 'bad' WS instruction? If there is a problem, isn't it with just with low number jumpers? Do we need a whole new USPA program for Wingsuit Instructor Ratings to solve that problem? Here is my idea: Lobby for the 200 jump minimum REQUIREMENT. RECOMMEND that instructors use the fine manual that has been developed, and let the INDIVIDUAL decide who is a good instructor and who isn't. When the USPA has ratings for FF, Crew, and Swooping Instructors will be a fine time to do it for WS. Not before. How is a 50-100 jump wonder to know who is a good WS Instructor? He wouldn't need to know until 200 jumps, if you get that simple change alone. At 200 jumps an individual should be able to make their own decision about who to train with, and I see no reason to add new requirements for those with 500 jumps. There is zero evidence that this group requires an instructor at all. Of course, I'd recommend they use one. Most of the time people complain about unsafe training, it's really about low timers that shouldn't have been there in the first place. 200 jumps is a reasonable number for anybody, I think, then find your own way to the sky. Nobody is going to be pulling for you if you get it wrong. When WS Instructors start flying in and saving people is when they should have ratings. But what do I know?

Dear DZO's, Why do we see so many people landing in different directions at your DZ's? Before you answer, let me ask what you use for directions. Do you have a tetrahedron or arrow? Most places I've been have had one or added one. I think they are a great idea. I've been to 15 DZ's, some more than others of course. Having used a windsock only, I know it can be safely done without a more idiot proof indicator, but having been an idiot myself a time or two, I'm for making it simple. Being more idiot proof isn't doing the job either apparently, given the number of collisions and near misses I've seen, even with my relatively short experience, and the incidents forum speaks for itself. A lot of times there was an arrow but people didn't follow it. Why not, and what can you and we do about it? First let's look at some reasons it happens. I'd say number one is low wind days. The windsock and flags say one thing, the arrow another. First jumper down compounds the problem even more as everybody does what they think is best, and follows whoever went that way. If we were planes we would expect to know which direction to land in a clear way, and know the other planes wouldn't be going the other way. The airport makes the rules and the planes follow them. So if the arrow is the rule, it is your job as a DZO (air control manager,) to make sure the arrow is pointing in the right way for me to land, and my job for me to do it. On low variable wind days, everybody should be able to trust the arrow, even if that means a person assigned to hold it when a load is coming down. The same person can watch for anybody who doesn't follow the arrow and set them straight or ground them. Of course there should be flexibility for swoopers and different DZ layouts, but my main suggestion is to get away from 'chase the windsock' chaos that seems to happen at good, safety oriented DZs on a regular basis. Boogies are worse. I think that it should be clearly indicated in the main landing area what direction people will land. Another reason is improper education, it is the jumper's responsibility to find out what they need to know when jumping at your DZ; I agree with that. Are you making it as clear and simple as possible? Big maps with arrows on them are nice. Are the rules clearly posted? Are you doing everything possible to protect the people that follow them by watching out for the ones that don't? This is not directed at any one place, and perhaps irrevelent at your's, dear DZO. If so, I commend you and invite you to share what works for you. Others are also invited to think about other reasons and solutions and comment on mine. I think this is a problem area that can be improved. But what do I know?

But that is the real point of this thread. What difference does it make who is an instructor if the new bird does not have to use them? As long as things are only recommendations then anyone can do what they want anyway. If they are going to regulate anything, it will start with defining who can participate, then what skills need to be instructed to whom, and by whom. I see jump numbers as a key part of this discussion, and the desire to make regulations about that issue by some. Fair enough; the accidents have been by low timers and now there are eyes pointed this way. Stating instructor requirements or comparing different methods is fine, but defining who has to do what to get in the air and regulating it is what it's all about. What do we want, and what are we going to get? As I stated, I'm all for following rules, so whatever is regulated is fine by me. I see this change as drawing a line at 200 jumps. After that everyone needs a FFC. The instructors will have to follow a syllibus, and also follow the rules, if they come about and however they are defined; not a bad thing. Still and all, would I recommed that this become a regulation? I'd like to see the actual proposals and then decide. I've noticed that wing cutaways are recommended too, what if I don't have them? Now that may be a hijack... But what do I know?

I think the key word is recommendation vs regulation. Have you ever had someone give you advice that you chose not to follow? Do you know what the manufacturer requirements were for my suit at the time and place of my FFC? Again, if it were breaking a rule I would not have done it, and I'm sure my instructor would not have let me anyway. If 200 jumps should be a minimum then make it a regulation. I am also interested in how many agree with DSE that a FFC by a USPA rated instructor should be a mandatory requirement for 500+ jumpers. I'd recommend it but not require it. But what do I know?

Your comments were based on a 1.25 WL. When figured correctly it is 1/1. The OP got it wrong at first. That was sorted out in the thread. I figured it would be because the numbers in the OP didn't add up. Look before you leap But what do I know?

This sounds like a significant change from the current recommendation that someone with 500 jumps can fly without formal instruction. Do you feel that this is a needed change, as most of the justification for this is from low timers rather than experienced jumpers? Granted, someone with 10,000 jumps will not know every aspect of wingsuits, however, they could quite easily learn by other methods than taking a rated course IMO. But what do I know?

I think you would understand this better if you weighed 200 lbs. or more. I can pull in a track and fly like a bird, but I've got to work at it. I can get slammed in a lazy track. IMO that is where a lot of this comes from, not to say that it couldn't happen to a lighter person in a bad enough track. That is something to point out about pulling in a track: It can be dangerous if done really wrong. Pulling in a track is certainly possible, even to get soft openings, but a hard opening is nothing to mess around with. and a beginner could hurt themselves trying this. I don't think it's hard to learn to do it right, and I can easily see where you are at since it works so well for you, but it's not as easy for everybody. You've probably done a lot of tracking jumps; some jumpers only ever track at the end of a skydive and just dont get the vertical drop in speed that you are used to. I think everyone benefits from tracking dives and they are fun too. A bird pull at the end, and the opening should be no harder than a RW jump, but only when vertical speed is reduced. Only when good tracking skills are developed should this be tried. But what do I know?

I believe there is a more basic question at hand: Should the USPA make it a requirement to have 200 jumps? That they then need an instructor is another issue, and I'd vote they find whoever they want. Manufacturer instructor ratings, Wingsuit schools, word of mouth. Me (!) A skydiver with 200 jumps should be able to pick who they want, and be capable of making decisions for themselves. Don't forget that the existing recommendations have no problem with someone with 500 jumps getting a wingsuit and a manual and just going for it. That is unlikely to change IMO, and I'm sure it's been successfully done. I'll bet we all know wingsuitors that have started with less jumps or without an instructor that are doing just fine now. The problem came from 2 low timers going in and now people are looking at what to do about it. There may be a push to regulate 200 jumps, and I think that is going to come before or along with debating what an instructor is. I think the instructor debate is fine but not what USPA is looking at as much as the jump numbers issue. In that area I side with DSE that those guys would not have gone in for the simple reason that a regulation rather than a requirement would have kept them out of wingsuits at that particular time. DZOs, if faced with a regulation that every wingsuitor has at least 200 jumps would simply enforce it, IMO. A recommendation is a whole different thing and that is how these incidents came about. I'll let an instructor chime in to say that they would let someone fly if it was against a regulation to do so, but IMO there won't be any. For the record, I had 165 jumps, paid for a lot of coaching and flew a tracking suit before my FFC. A reputable instructor taught me, and on my own I decided to ignore the USPA recommendation to wait for 35 more jumps. I doubt my instructor would have taken me if it was a regulation, and I know I would not have tried. As it was, it worked out OK for me but despite that I would agree with a 200 jump rule. I do think it will happen eventually and think it may be a good idea for us to get on board with it now. I'm interested to see what others think of it, and not just USA as other countries may follow the lead on it, But what do I know?

The key words there are recommendation and regulation. Were it a regulation presented in the SIM by the USPA then dropzones, vendors, and instructors, coaches, or friends would not let people fly with less than 200 jumps. The question is should it be a regulation? If so, it seems like it could be, given the types of accidents we've seen. If we generally get behind it, that would probably influence the USPA to some extent. But what do I know?

The odds are low, but I know what you mean. One of the three has a high probability of hurting somebody else, landing against traffic, and you know that nobody is going to do that consistantly for months and get away with it. What dropzone is going to put up with that for more than about twice? Biffing landings can be a lot of things, but my part of this discussion was about PLFs, and how some people sneer and tease at anything less than a perfect stand up, (mostly keyboard experts, compared to real life, I might say.) My point was, a PLF is a perfectly acceptable landing, and no more dangerous to anybody else than a tiptoe on the X. It is safer to the jumper than almost anything, IMO, when conditions are not perfect. Landing off, coming in a bit wrong or unusual circumstances. In real life, I didn't get mocked too much for my biffs, I got mostly good advice and help. Now I do fine. After 100 crashes I got pretty good at the PLF. I'm glad I don't have to do them much any more, but more glad to have had the practice. As I said before, I'll do one whenever I want to, and hey, dude, I'll try not to hurt anybody else.

Interesting idea. Could rip your arm or leg off too. Is this a really good friend or what? I should also mention that a real skydiver would never expect anyone to come save them. The only plausable good outcome is the person save themself. That was the goal when they jumped out, and it's not subject to change on the way down. Dare I hope we agree on this?

Two important points that I'm glad you point out. I should have said mine would be no good for contacts. I don't freefly either and in fact only fly in a wingsuit and the wind is really light for me. Still I'd go with comfort over looking cool. That and low price is what I've come up with for myself. But what do I know?

True story: I'm working in a computer store; just me and the tech - another older guy. In comes a pair of women, one middle age, the other young. I see young girl has a tongue piercing and say some comment about it. She sticks her tongue out and shows it to me. Older one says, 'I've got one too.' and they are both wagging their tongues at us. The tech is sitting down a bit behind me, watching. Next, older one says, 'I've got another one, wanna see?' I'm thinking belly button, maybe nipple. I say 'sure.' She immediately drops trou, spreads and shows me a very intimate piercing. I bend down and check it out, stand back up and casually say, 'nice.' Like this happens every day - playing it cool. I take a quick look back at the tech, who is just short of having an epileptic siezure, then over at the younger girl to see what her reaction is. Honest to God, this happened. Anyway, She looks at the older one and says, "Aww Mom, are you gonna show that to everybody?" So that's my answer to your question. Thanks for asking. But what do I know?

I lose stuff so fast that spending 150 bucks for a pair of sunglasses ranks among the dumbest things I've ever done. Now I use anything cheap that won't fall apart on me and do fine. They give out safety glasses at work for free and I like them best. They look pretty much like regular sunglasses and come in dark and clear. The wind getting in my eyes was a big concern at one time, but I don't find it a problem at all. This is just one guy's opinion, remember, and I'm sure you will hear others that are not the same. Listen to everybody and do what you think is best for you. Maybe try out some different ones first. I'd loan you mine and not worry if you lost them, but most people would probably say, you lose or break them you buy them, so be careful with that. But what do I know?

If you're pulling low, landing against traffic and biffing all your landings what are the odds you're not going to get hurt or hurt somebody else? Don't forget, shit happens. Just having bad luck is bad enough, let alone doing crap like that. Mocking on the internet is OK too. Have fun. In person is a different story, but I don't get much of that. But what do I know?

Are you kidding? People who mock can and should be kicked in the nuts. If someone does something embarrassing and/or painful, they should get sympathy, not mockery. As for stand up landings, they are great, but not mandatory. Skydiving: It's not a job, it's a hobby. If you're having fun, and not hurting yourself or anybody else, you're doing it right. Any landing you can walk away from is a good one, and it's better to do a PLF when you don't need to than not do one and get hurt. When do I PLF? Any time I damn well please! But what do I know?

I love Scotch.... Aye! I haven't seen my favorite mentioned: Glenffidich. Single malt is the way to go - I haven't had one I didn't like. Neat for me, and a good smoke to go with it... Cheers!

You guys should look up 'plausible' in the dictionary. Hint: plausible = likely to work. I know this has been done when planned, with special equipment, and from altitude. That hardly makes me think it is LIKELY to work in the given scenario. Theoretically, it is remotely possible, but as I stated, in my opinion, it would never happen successfully. Even with a rabbit foot I wouldn't try it. But what do I know?

Mine too. (rough seas) Harrr. I've been on here for 6 weeks. Now I've got money to fly again. Woohoo. But what do I know?

I made my point in post #17. This is a waste of time. Either view can be just as easily used to prove the same point. Believe in bad luck = could be complacent. Don't believe in bad luck = could be complacent. You proved it one way, while I proved it the other. My solution = Take responsibility for your actions. Your solution = Red rabbit foot. 83% agree with you = you win. Also from post #17, this was fun. Thanks for playing. But what do I know?

An important consideration is if you will be importing data from an altimeter, and if so, the brand you have. I use an AltiTrack with JumpTrack software, and am able to transfer data easily into my computer with the USB cable that came with the software. My understanding is that the L&B products do not interact with ParaLog software, so that would not be a good choice for me. I am pleased with the combination I have, as the extra data I obtain is very useful, as are the charts and graphs I can see with the program. But what do I know?

No they wouldn't. That is an oxymoron. To the OP: Not only is this implausible, IMO it is impossible. But what do I know?

The Matrix? One flew over the Cookoos nest But what do I know?

Looks like one rabbit wasn't so lucky. So no answer to my question? Was there any point to this at all, or are you just happy to 'win' the poll? But what do I know?