danielcroft

That's funny. Totally stealing it.

We talk about landing direction at our DZ and what people are doing. But one of the issues we seem to have is people randomly deciding to land however and people being cocks when you're trying to work out direction. They seem to think it's hilarious to say that they're landing into the wind. I make a point of agreeing the direction when I'm on loads and then we announce and confirm again in the plane. Even before this latest incident I'd been talking to people about landing contrary to the agreed direction. I think that there are two sides to this "team sport" called landing. One is communicating what we're doing and the other is calling people out who don't do what's agreed. That doesn't mean storming up and calling them an asshole (although, that might work for some, it's generally accepted to not be the best method). That means calling *everyone* out, including me.

I've started talking to all my friends and have encouraged them to do what I'm going to do which is make sure the landing direction is agreed on every load and that we talk to people who land contrary to the agreed pattern. We should also make every effort to separate our HP landings into a separate end of the LZ (we don't have a whole lot of space) and/or via time. I'll also be working especially hard not to make mistakes myself and accept criticism from whoever offers it even if it stings my ego. Change starts at home people.

Thanks for pointing that out Seth, I might email Jim at the uspa and ask what the approximate guess is on the active distribution and if there's any estimate on how many jumps are being made by each license group. I'm curious to see how those numbers line up. Oh and lol @ DavJohns.

You're welcome. I actually didn't turn ads off btw, I'll just deal with it until you guys figure it out. I post too much to get a free ride anyway.

Some would already argue that there is a fair amount of canopy training required in order to get your a. The problem with this is that it's extremely difficult to enforce and some people actually should be allowed to fly at higher loadings with the correct training. Think about this: what happens when you're loaded at 1.3 at 300 jumps and over winter you put on 15 pounds? Who's to know? What about wearing weights? It's just really difficult to enforce. Completely impractical. Even if your previous recommendations were taken into account, you're still going to have people loaded a lot higher coming in behind others and the fact of the matter is that we're flying gravity powered gliders, hanging in brakes won't always work or be any safer. Pretty much already in place when it comes to swoop landings and may not be having the desired affect. This might be worth pursuing but then you end up with a problem with HP landings and regular landings in the same area again. Just because someone is loading their canopy, does that mean they need to land with swoopers? Maybe 3 landing areas would be in order but where do you go to learn to swoop? There are a lot of competing interests that need to be considered. Some people are going to lose out (maybe me) but that's better than killing someone or being killed. According to the USPA group member pledge, all DZs must have a separate landing area for swooping, turns greater than X (depends on the DZ) are not permitted in the main area. Problem is that by lack of enforcement, they still happen and even if they weren't what's to stop people colliding when swooping? We're all people, we make mistakes, I'm not sure there's any way to rule out deaths under canopies no matter how well they're flying at the time. I think that if we take the time to enforce the separate HP landing area and stop people swooping through the regular pattern, that'd go some way to making us safer I think. Who does the enforcement? We do. If you see something shitty going on then call it out. I have and I've been called out when I've made a mistake. The fact is, like DocPop said, we still don't know what the scenario was in either of the incidents at Perris, until we find out that there was some flagrant abuse of the rules then demanding the rules be changed doesn't make a lot of sense. We need to think about what is going on and make a reasoned effort to resolve issues that we can, not knee-jerk and throw more rules at something that we can't even define. Obviously this is the opinion of someone with only 400 jumps, who jumps at the Ranch no less (lol) so take it for what it's worth.

I think we're reading way too much into the statistics at this point. I'm interested to see what people think of the statistic that 83% of fatalities were D license holders. Extrapolating a percentage into probability doesn't seem like a sound application of the figures to me. For the record, according to page 19 of the February 2010 board meeting presentation(http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/February2010BoardPresentation.ppt), there are far fewer D license holders than there are A license holders. In fact, D license holders represent the smallest number of people. That doesn't mean that D license holders aren't making the most jumps but I haven't found any statistics to support or refute that from the USPA. It would be interesting to see a break down of the average number of skydives made per license. At that point we could actually start looking further into the idea that one license group was overrepresented in the the fatality statistics. On the face of it, I doubt that D license holders represent ~83% of skydives made but that's just an unfounded opinion (from a relative newb).

Thanks for the tip. I think it's something they need to sort out with their ad network however in any case.

Guys, There's an ad for "The King and I" that's being placed under the "my stuff" menu but it's too wide for that area and is covering up the list of forums or posts so that you can't click on some things. You should talk to the ad network and let them know that the placement is incorrect. I've attached a screenshot of the ad in question and the code for that ad (including placement id and flight id). That should give you enough info to resolve the issue. Until this is fixed, I'm going to block ads for your site. I try to support you guys by not blocking them but I draw the line when I can't actually use your site because of an ad. Dan

I haven't had any emergency exits (yet?) but our 182 engine was having issues yesterday. We were at about 9k and it started spluttering. I was pretty much ready to go anyway so I flipped my visor down ready to go on command. Pilot leveled out and tried again only to have the same outcome so he set us up to jump and said we should go. Wasn't an emergency at that point though, plane was flying fine. Jump was over pretty fast though. Talked to the pilot afterwards, I mentioned that he looked annoyed, he was.

On the rig moving front, at my DZ, our student rigs have adjustable laterals. On one of my jumps (actually, jump 16 - I checked my log book ) the laterals came loose and the rig started turning me quite noticeably, had to correct for it but I was very uncomfortable and ended up pulling higher (6k as opposed to 5k). I'd think that your instructors should be able to see it moving to one side or the other though? Could be wrong of course. Also, if you're doing tunnel time and have some specific physical constraints in terms of having powerful turns then maybe talk to your instructors/coaches on coordinated leg/arm turns if you haven't already?

I've used dz.com a lot (well there's your problem!) for gathering information but as someone who doesn't consider themselves an expert, I vet that information against experienced people's opinions who I know and trust. There are different types of information you can gather from dz.com. Some of that information - objective/technical - is relatively easy to verify by going to the original source so, you can take it on face value until it's important and then verify. As an example, a friend asked me about adding an RSL to his rig that had never had one. I looked up on here and found something but because it was actually important and needed information, I called the manufacturer and asked them. He could easily have done it himself but I was curious so just did it for him. He took that information to his rigger (who confirmed without calling the manufacturer - there, two reputable sources) and that was that. One of the other types of information is more subjective like "why can't I stop a turn" or "how come when I land I flare too high" or (in my case) "why do I suck at skydiving". In all of those cases, you're actually going to need someone instructing you in person like DSE said. When you're dealing with these kinds of issues, any advice you get is more in terms of the possibilities and in reading that information you'll get a wide understanding of the possible causes (keeping in mind that many people could be telling you something that's not accurate without realizing that they're wrong) that you could keep in the back of your head for when you talk to your instructor/coach/etc. For me, in those instances, I'd take the the scenarios that I felt were plausible (keeping in mind, I'm no expert either) and discuss them with my coach or instructor to get their take on it. A lot of what I read, I consider completely hypothetical because, it's not directly relevant to a current situation, it's not important, not affecting me or is obviously silly (but may still be possible). Those things I file in the back of my head to have a think about but pretty much discard them until something related comes up in future. This post falls into the second category, which you might summarize as YMMV.

Look, it's pretty obvious to me from across the intertubes what's happening and I think you can easily fix it if you allow yourself to make errors and just accept it. Yes it sucks having to pay for another jump but in reality, these are some of the safest, easiest jumps you'll ever do. You have two people there whose job it is to look after you and all you're really trying to remember is to relax and pull. Once you've done that, the same applies for landing, you just need to flare. There are many, many intricacies that you need to fill into the blanks here but that's what learning is all about. Give yourself a break already. Go up, have fun, relax and enjoy.

You'll probably find that your instructors have heard it all before. We all had fear (well, the really crazy ones didn't!) to overcome when we started out. I had to lie down and take deep breaths before each jump, then I'd repeat my dive flow continuously on the way to altitude. I was my worst critic (still am) and had my instructor tell me to lighten up. No one is perfect in this game, don't expect too much of yourself, it only makes it harder. Lots of people like to remind students in your predicament that you still made a skydive and that's pretty awesome. Win or fail, you'll still be awesome.

When you put too much pressure on yourself, you're making your job a lot harder. People always say to relax, this is actually an instruction rather than a suggestion. By that I mean that it's a lot harder to fly in any position without being relaxed, both physically and mentally. The other issue is not being in the moment. By that I mean that you're not thinking about the job at hand and in doing so you're kind of sabotaging yourself. When you're in free fall or landing, it's really important to be there and not worrying about something that could happen or did happen. This skydiving caper is kinda dangerous so you should be afraid but you should try to work out a way to be comfortable with your fear so that you can do the stuff you need to do. It sounds like I'm suggesting it's easy but I know it's not. I'm sure you posted up to vent a little and that's cool but talking to your instructors should be your first point of call.

I had the same experience. Jump 12, spinning line twists, I don't even remember if I was aware of the "one hand per handle" method but that's what I did. Stand up on my reserve.

Isn't that a bit of a problem?

Yeah, sometimes I forget to delete that stuff... oh well.

Why don't you PM me and ask who thinks it's cool for me to be flying those canopies mate instead of attacking me for being "mad skillz" person. Nah, falling back on the "mad skillz" meme, so fondly used here, is a way better approach. Plus, it's easier to ignore what I'm saying and not have to refute it logically.

One point here on the swooper setting the pattern: if you're jumping at a USPA Group Member DZ then the swooper should be landing into a different area (or on their own pass) and therefore, the direction they land should be irrelevant to the rest of the (non-swooping) load. What am I missing here guys?

PD post some great videos, like the CP meet videos they've done and this one is great. They also have posted several interesting instructional/learning videos on line type with John LeBlanc himself (who is also awesome). I'm more talking about me having an interest in seeing something (namely canopy R&D) that is rarely seen outside the companies who make canopies and the people who get to fly them. Props to PD for being awesome with videos and with their blog, factory team and instructional stuff but I'd love to see some of their test flights.

He's (I assume from his username) a BASE jumper, how is this punishment!? @ Shah I think my first downsize was actually driven, in part, by my desire to reduce the difference between the speed of my canopy and the average. If you're loading at (say) .9 and the average at your DZ is (say) 1.3 then you're just going to have to find a good way to deal with being passed. Waiting in brakes is fine as long as you're not confusing people behind you. As DocPop mentioned, communication is often the key. Before anyone says it, I didn't just randomly downsize, I made sure I was ready and had senior people who agreed I was ready.

>> Why is that an issue? The risk of a collision is greater than the risk of landing downwind - so the arrow stays put until the last person is down. Then it's moved for the next load. That works for me but that's practically the same as just agreeing the direction in advance for the whole load isn't it? >> The arrow gets a similar result, except 1) you can see it a lot higher and 2) it can be moved by someone with a _very_ good idea of wind. I think the limited arrow (moves at 10mph or whatever smart people say) is a better solution than FMD if it's locked once the first person lands. The contentions raised are around planning (agreeing beforehand in either case resolves this) and adjustment during the load (locking it would resolve this). The third issue is overlapping loads, a limited arrow resolves this where FMD doesn't. Anyway, I feel like I'm becoming the "noise" part of this equation so I'll stop now.

Lawsuits aren't good for any of us. Spurious or not, they cost everyone money and time. I'm still waiting to see what VSE come up with. I think Basik has the right approach and also make a great point. Our reserves and containers are certified but separately, the AAD is not but can break the certification. That just seems wrong to my non-rigger-relatively-newby-jumper eyes. Not to mention the whole "hey that reserve will totally open in 3 seconds or 300ft, but we can't be sure in your rig... enjoy!"...

I really wish that PD and other canopy manufacturers would do this too. Obviously they don't want to give away too much (although, having said that, I don't really know what could be gained at the stage they're flying prototypes) but it really was amazing to watch. Especially when they were having crazy behavior. I'm personally used to flying pretty docile canopies so seeing some of the craziness the test pilots had to put up with was eye-opening. Thanks guys!