riggerpaul

Your characterization of that NorCal dz is not entirely accurate. Solely in the interest of accuracy and fairness, I must point out that popular "no rules" dz in NorCal has a NO HOOK TURNS rule. Hook it there, and you will be banned. At least that's what I have been told. Some will surely call me a fan of that dz, though I am not. But fan or not, it is not fair to ignore the fact that they have and apply the rule I have mentioned. Many other dropzones, my home dropzone included, have been unwilling to establish such a rule.

It seems to me that the question comes down to whether or not we can ever trust the CI, DZO, S&TA etc etc. In that other thread about the camera, a fellow had gone to those people and been allowed to jump with his camera. As I understand it, there were restrictions that had to be met, and the jumper was expected to stop with the camera if he found himself unable to meet them. But still the thread had remarks that those people had done the wrong thing, had questionable motivations, etc etc. If you don't trust the people in authority to do the right thing, then you are indeed advocating that recommendations be treated as rules. As I see it, part of the reason that they are recommendations in the first place is that even the folks who are writing them admit that there can be reasonable exceptions. Sure, this places additional responsibility on the people who you trust to make these reasonable exceptions. But they can always just say no if they are not happy with the proposal. In Stan's case, those people know for a fact that there is simply no way that Stan can perform as he himself expects he can. They know that there are EPs to be learned and tested etc etc. But, in the case of some of the other things to that you are comparing to Stan, it isn't quite so clear that there aren't people who can, in fact, place restrictions on their actions and proceed with reasonable safety. After all, they already displayed good judgment by knowing that the recommendation exists, and consulting with the appropriate experts to see if it might be exempted to one extent or another for him. He could have just put the thing on and gone to the plane. Just for a twist, suppose Stan's friend had literally given him a First Jump Course. Suppose Stan's friend is an AFF-I, and suppose Stan can actually pass a written test and demonstrate EPs, and dive flow etc. Must you insist that he sits through the class again, or do you take him up on a Level-I and see what happens?

Wouldn't that be because they are two different animals? Lady Astra and G4 do even have the same name other than Mirage. I can't speak about the Lady Astra, but the RTS, G3 and G4 all carry the same RTS TSO. As far as the FAA is concerned, they would be the same thing, right? But the new instructions for this thing cannot be used on an older version of this thing, which is what leads to the question in the first place. The new manuals are not necessarily inclusive of all the earlier products. So with some things you must use the old manuals, and with other things, we are being told we must use the new manuals. If they want to establish the rule that any new manual supercedes all earlier manuals, then any new manual must include all the old information as well as the new information. It cannot only pertain to the newer version of the product.

I was waiting for someone with a bit more authority to answer, but since no one has: 65.115 (a):Present evidence satisfactory to the Administrator that he has packed at least 20 parachutes of each type for which he seeks a rating, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and under the supervision of a certificated parachute rigger holding a rating for that type or a person holding an appropriate military rating; The candidate needs to have been supervised. It doesn't mention for use or not. It also doesn't mention main or reserve. But it does say "supervised". I'd personally have a problem with a candidate who has only packed mains, not reserves. And the practical test I took was packing a reserve. The DPRE said that it would be a valid packjob, and would have my seal on it (at least it would have if the reserve canopy had been airworthy). Yes, of course. I've read that before. I should have remembered. But I can answer your question, so maybe that makes up for it some. Mains have no associated type ratings. So if the candidate must pack parachutes for which the supervisor holds an appropriate type rating, it must be a reserve. Thanks for your help!

roger will co. as i indicated I plan on jumping each incriment 10 times till I come close to the 220 and then take it for a test drive. But again i'm very sorry to bother but as a new guy who love soft landings and only jumps when the winds are under 14mph how does the flare on a 7 compare to that of a 9. Thank you. Shah 9-cell parachutes will generally have a more powerful flare than a 7-cell parachute. The exact moment that you start the flare, and the time it takes for you to make the full control stroke will likely be different. Since the 9-cells usually have a more powerful flare, you can often flare them more gradually than you might flare a 7-cell. So, the two-stage flare will likely be easier to learn and may be more forgiving of mistakes on a 9-cell canopy than on a 7-cell canopy. That being said, why would anyone still jump a 7-cell? Well, the 7-cell canopy will often have a greater range of control, and so be able to fly better in deeper brakes than a 9-cell will. This means you can often get more accurate landings on a 7-cell. Looking at the serious competition accuracy canopies, they are not 9-cells. But many people achieve all the accuracy they need on a 9-cell, so the 7-cell "benefit" in this may be moot. It depends on your needs and wants. As with most discussions of this nature, YMMV.

Yes, but from which direction? I'd explain it, but Bill Booth does a much better job. In particular, read the second paragraph of his post. Sure he has a vested interest in the skyhook, but the physics as described do make some sense. Sorry, I am not sold, Bill's explanation notwithstanding. Once the risers release, there is no longer any radial acceleration, and you will travel in a straight line. Yes, you might initially be traveling sideways, but nothing is going to align you any better until you get some tension on the reserve suspension lines. The Skyhook itself isn't going to straighten you out, since it cannot really exert any significant force on you. The lines are still playing out of the freebag and since the line pouch on the freebag offers virtually no resistance, there is nearly no tension on the lines while they play out of the freebag. Until you reach line stretch, and the bag strips off the canopy, there isn't any force that will align you any different from how you started the deployment. Once the bag strips off the canopy, you aren't connected to the Skyhook anymore, so it isn't going to do anything to you after that. No significant tension can be applied to the lines until the canopy itself, which is firmly attached to the lines, puts some tension on them. Neither a reserve pilot chute nor a Skyhook can get around that simple fact. The lines get no significant tension until the canopy is pulling on them. That's no different with a Skyhook or a conventional reserve pilot chute. If you were going to be traveling sideways for a reserve pilot chute deployment, you will be traveling exactly the same for the Skyhook deployment. The Skyhook is a giant reserve pilot chute. I've been in some pretty spinny CF events, and I never had to lose hundreds of feet aligning with the relative wind. None of this says that a Skyhook is a bad thing. The Skyhook is a fine thing. Get one if you want it. I am only saying that some of the "science" doesn't seem convincing to me.

Both the reserve pilot chute and the Skyhook pull on the reserve bridle. How does the Skyhook ensure that the risers are even and parallel when the reserve pilot chute does not?

Mark, No, you disagree with the FAA and also myself. Supervision is not permitted on a rig that is intended for use. It states it plainly in the rule. Supervision is allowed for anything NOT intended for use, like training. It is that simple. You have to be a certificated rigger to pack a parachute FOR USE. 65.111 (a) No person may pack, maintain, or alter any personnel-carrying parachute intended for emergency use in connection with civil aircraft of the United States (including the reserve parachute of a dual parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping) unless that person holds an appropriate current certificate and type rating issued under this subpart and complies with §§65.127 through 65.133. There are no provisions for supervision for reserves intended FOR USE. There are provisions for the rigger to supervise a rigger canidate NOT FOR USE. That is the difference. Remind me to bring this up in the DPRE Recurrent Seminar for you if it still does not make sense to you. Cheers, MEL Hi MEL, Interesting that you specifically mention the text I have highlighted. Reading 65.125(a)(2) and 65.125(b)(2), where the supervisory privileges of our certificates are described, it seems we may only be allowed to supervise the packing of a main parachute. 65.125(a)(2) and 65.125(b)(2) say we can supervise work according to 105.43(a) and 105.45(b)(1). 105.43(a) and 105.45(b)(1) deal exclusively with main parachutes. So I wonder if our supervisory privileges are actually more limited than even you have said. Where does it talk about supervising a candidate packing reserves not intended for use? Thanks! -paul

If having less flaps covering the freebag is such an improvement, then the side flaps and top/side flaps should be seen as slowing down the deployment in the case of a reserve deployment with the main in place. Those flaps cover quite a bit of the outline of the reserve freebag, similar to some other rigs. I do not really think the effect will be significant, but when they claim a benefit from fewer flaps and then have other flaps that are counter to that benefit, it seems strange. Other rigs have riser covers and side flaps. Having examined a number of rigs with respect to the recent Skydiver Advisory, it is my impression that while the riser covers may contribute to the effect of the side flaps, it is the side flaps and the highly defined lower reserve container that make the greatest contributions. The fact that the Basik Seven needs the staging loop to keep the freebag in place at the beginning of a reserve deployment tells me all I need to know. I don't believe that loop would be there except that the bag would likely fall out without it. That's the kind of reserve container I'd like to have. Now, my 1994 Javelin lets the freebag get out pretty quick even with side flaps. But more modern rigs are far tighter and with far more structure in the reserve container than my old Javelin.

On the other hand, on a rig that will deploy as swiftly at the Basik Seven, how much do you really gain with a MARD? Look at the manual for that rig. There are only 2 flaps over the bag, once they are gone, there's nothing left to delay deployment. Sure, it has the staging loop that holds the two top horizontal cover things, but once you get bridle stretch, the bag is not going to stay on your back, since there is quite literally nothing left to retard it. Just finding a place to put a MARD will not be easy, and will likely mess up an elegent design. They should send me one so I can get people interested in it here in NorCal!

I don't think that the liability issue is as big a problem as Bolas might think it is. My worry is membership, individual and/or group, alienation. If the individual members don't like the rules that are adopted, eventually they will stop being members. Since Group Membership requires that all jumpers at the Group Member dz are members, and since dropzones are businesses, if individual members start abandoning USPA, so will some Group Members. When other Group Members who remain see they are losing business by remaining Group Members, they will quit too. So, as I see it, over-regulation could conceivably destroy USPA.

No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. Which appear to be having the intended effect - Is it perfect? No. Does it limit some jumpers "freedom"? Yes - until they get some experience under their belt, that is. Will it reduce injuries? Yes. Will it make it easier for a DZO/DZM/S&TA to tell someone they can't jump that canopy? Yes. Will it make it easier for gear dealers and private sellers to tell someone they can't buy that canopy? Yes. Will I have to check the manifest to see if "that guy" is on it before I get on that load? Probably not. Will it happen? No. Even if someone presents it to the BOD. For, as I was told in a PM, it's already been decreed high up in USPA that it will never happen. In the Netherlands, is it actual LAW? In the USA, it will not be. This month's Parachutist magazine mentioned that one dz dropped group membership because they didn't want to provide their maintenance logs. Maintenance logs are law. Why not provide them? Simple. They didn't want to. Forcing dropzones to enforce more rules is not the solution, since they can easily opt out of USPA. I suppose USPA could try to say that member are not allowed to jump at any but USPA member dropzones. That would not fly. There would be lawsuits regarding illegal anti-competitive practices. You thought the Skyride suit was bad? Just wait for this one. Besides, the members would just quit and jump elsewhere. Being more forceful is not the solution. As someone said, maybe on this thread, or maybe on the American Boogie accident thread, we are instructors and advisors, not policemen. We can teach skills, but we cannot teach of enforce common sense. We reap what we sow. We have made skydiving look so easy and accessible that we are attracting people who don't have the common sense to conduct themselves with reasonable precautions for their own safety. I don't have a suggestion/solution, but more regulation won't fix it, since we can easily opt out of the regulatory body.

+2 It doesn't say they must be logged. It only says that you must present "evidence satisfactory to the Administrator".

Look, the recommendation is simply that - a recommendation. If a person thinks it should not be applied in that person's particular case, that person can go to the DZO and/or the S&TA and/or the head camera guy, and try to get approval. Maybe they know you well enough to give an immediate answer, or, maybe they will ask you to show them why the recommendation should not be applied in this particular case. But, whatever the course, the recommendation is a good place to start. Variance from it is something that will need to be earned. It is not to simply be expected. It is not about the size of the camera or the simplicity of the mount. It is about being ready to get into something that most people have not been ready for so soon. It is not a personal insult to fail to get a variance. These people have to consider your safety and the safety of those around you when such a request is presented. They are (usually) doing the best they can for all involved. Some people are making it sound like the most horrible thing that there is a recommendation that says to wait. But if they are good enough, and can prove it, there already are ways to approach the thing. So what's the problem?

Maybe there are other ways to look at it. If the dz is not closed, then there are honest people trying to make a living there. Refusing to jump there maybe doesn't hurt John Hart, but it could be hurting those honest people who are still there. They were duped as much as anyone, so why punish them? This isn't quite like saying you won't invest with Bernie Madoff anymore. It isn't nearly that clear. Some of it may depend on the long term disposition of the dropzone. If Hart is forced to sell his share to pay his legal costs, he might not be around to tarnish the place anymore. Would that alter your view?

Hey, that's about what I said. Nice to know we can agree sometimes.

Actually, the DZO can make and apply rules as he sees fit. No need for them to be uniform. He can make rule that applies to me and not to you. It is his business, and he can run it as he pleases. Our part is to choose the dz we patronize based on how they meet our needs.

Okay, though it comes from a court, it is still just a press release. This was not necessarily written by a judge, or even by a lawyer. If you are still not satisfied about what actually happened, the press release has contact info. Me? I think I understand what happened, and feel no need to bother the guy.

A business with employees does not collect payroll taxes, it withholds them. There is never any collection. A collection implies a debt, and the employees have no debt to the employer. So the news reports are inaccurate to start with. Had they said that he failed to withhold the payroll taxes, that would be a different story. But no business ever collects payroll taxes. Saying that he failed to collect them is a non-statement.

The plain un-varnished truths regarding the beer rules are simple. 1) If you convince someone to buy beer, it will be consumed. 2) If you cannot convince someone to buy beer, some may go thirsty. It is the un-stated responsibility of all those who drink beer to maximize the occurrence of 1), above. Regarding pies - if/when you hit a person with a pie, if it tastes good, you won't be hated as much as when it tastes bad.

All he said, plus, nice neat flaking will make the pack job smaller. A wrinkly messy pack job takes more space in the bag. If you are already having trouble bagging, try to make your pack job neater and you will likely make things easier on yourself. On the other hand, if your bag is slightly loose, you can make a slightly messier pack job (as long as the other requirements NovaTTT mentioned are still met) and it might take up some more room in the bag.

Not really that unusually. How many skydivers pay taxes on those wages? But the reports all say he did not collect taxes which means to me that the employees had nothing withheld. However, that doesn't mean he could not be manipulating their paychecks to make it look like they had with holding then keeping the extra wages for himself intead of paying taxes to the government. The skydivers who don't pay taxes on the money they make skydiving do not appear to be employees. They appear, rightly or wrongly, to be contractors, and as such, are responsible for their own taxes. Current law calls for those people to get 1099 forms for that income. The person writing the checks to the contractors is not allowed to take withholding payments out. Employees, on the other hand, as supposed to have withholding taken out of their paychecks. If true employees are not seeing any withholding in their pay stubs, they would have to be complicit to let it continue. Withholding is supposed to be collected from each paycheck. But it doesn't go to the government but 4 times a year. In the meantime, it is in a bank account held by the employer. If he doesn't make the "quarterly" payment, nothing happens immediately. If he really didn't collect the taxes by withholding, then the employees are also liable to be charged with tax violations. Were they? If they weren't, then it is most likely that he withheld the monies, and put them in his own pocket instead of making the periodic payments to the government. This is sort of like raiding a corporate pension fund. Legally, it isn't actually stealing from the employees. But most people would still call it theft.

Sorry I don't buy it. He was convicted for not COLLECTING and paying tax. Not for stealing from his employees via manipulating their paychecks. Can you provide some proof of this? Are you just going by the news stories? Or do you have some other source? We all know how much the news people can screw up a story, so maybe they did the same here. Anyone know how long this was going on? Past 1 April 15 and not collecting the taxes would be evident to all involved, since they would not be reported in the W2s. I'm just going by all the news stories from the last several months. If he truly was stealing from the employees why wasn't this noted and included in his proceedings? None of the news stories I've seen mention him stealing. They only state he failed to collect the taxes. But everyone seems to assume he was stealing as well. Why is that? I find it hard to believe as he was NOT charged with stealing. If I were to receive paychecks that had no taxes withheld, I'd start asking questions. So, the likely way to keep honest employees in the dark is to withhold the money, but not make the tax payments to the government. If he simply didn't withhold any money, all his employees would have to be complicit. That seems unlikely to me. So I wonder if we simply do not have the whole story. Sometimes we think something looks like a theft, but it isn't legally so. Withholding without paying the government might be one of those cases. He is required to withhold, so withholding is not theft. But failing to send the money to the government is the crime, so he was charged with that. As I said, I mostly think we don't have the complete and accurate story.

Sorry I don't buy it. He was convicted for not COLLECTING and paying tax. Not for stealing from his employees via manipulating their paychecks. Can you provide some proof of this? Are you just going by the news stories? Or do you have some other source? We all know how much the news people can screw up a story, so maybe they did the same here. Anyone know how long this was going on? Past 1 April 15 and not collecting the taxes would be evident to all involved, since they would not be reported in the W2s.

If it's covered in class, the INSTRUCTOR asks the questions to check and verify their understanding and clear up misconceptions. You quiz them...just that simple....and you quiz them again. But yes, to agree with you to some extent, sometimes that STILL doesn't mean they got it 5 minutes later. What you describe is the difference between teaching and merely showing.