riggerpaul

Are you seriously suggesting that the average jumper has any hope of evaluating the ability of his reserve system to operate within the parameters that may be required? Most jumpers have little or no idea of what is inside the reserve container, or what it would take to be sure that what is in there would work. I dare say that even most riggers are not capable of making decisions like the ones you propose. Jumpers and riggers both rely on the fact that a rig carries a TSO approval as the indication that it is fit for use. But, apparently, the TSO approval is not the clear indication that we expect it to be.

My Spectre 210 with a Dacron CF lineset opens in 600-800 feet, sometimes a bit more, rarely a bit less. My loading is about 1.3 lbs/ft2.

I personally will never do that again! I had a PCIT that I contribute to holding onto my pilot chute a few seconds after I extracted it....Once it comes out and I extend my arm, I have committed and it goes bye bye! I don't think they meant pull it and hold it, cause that would be fucking stupid. I think this is more of a "reach and touch it, then wait as long as you safely can before you toss it." Actually what I do is pull it and put the PC in my mouth, that way all you have to do is open your mouth to deploy Really though, you are correct, I didn't mean pull it, just put your hand on your hackey and look at your altimeter, pull when you get to your number. when is it that you think you should stop tracking to do this hackey-holding?

I apologize for being so blunt. The way I interpret the "we need to gather more data" concept is this: "We are seeing something that has killed a few people. But we are really not sure yet what exactly the problem is. So, we have to wait for a few more people to get killed before we tell you anything more. In the meantime, try to be careful." If there is enough data to say what has been said, then we need to know what is known now so we can try to make a difference.

+1 I have no argument with this advice. But it presumes that the fellow can track, track straight, and has a good idea of where to go. From the story, it isn't clear to me that he has these skills. So, to me, I think this jump should be a wake-up call to the jumper that he needs to take a step back and get his basic skills more solid before he does another jump like this one.

I don't have an answer, but I'll ask a question that might help you get better answers. Was it a laparoscopic (minimally invasive) procedure, or do you have a "full size" scar?

Meaning only to refine your thought and intending no great argument, I think I'd prefer that once turned over, you have to shake a little bit to get the bag to drop out. Else we risk out of sequence deployment in unusual attitudes. But if you have a pilot chute that launches like a homesick angel, the sequence should be so fast as to possibly not matter. In the past, some rigs had a hesitator loop to help ensure a sequenced deployment. Then rigs got tighter, and hesitator loops went away. Maybe rigs are too tight now, and we should back up a bit.

If a jumper is having issues with tracking/heading control, adding a barrel roll into the equation is not the right answer. Once you start tracking, go hell bent for leather and be predictable. That barrel roll might change your heading into one right under another tracker, making the problem worse. Plan the dive and dive the plan. Which should include break off when the original plan goes to shit. I had a bad feeling this was going to start a controversy. I'm not talking about during the track. Once breakoff has occurred, a barrel roll is a bad idea. But, well before breakoff, if a jumper has gone way low and completely lost the other jumpers in the group? Knowing they are above you, but not where, is it a bad idea to flip over before tracking off to determine where the rest of the group is? To deterimine a safe direction to track? And agreed, as I said in my original post, having a plan for this beforehand is vital. The fellow can't stay close enough to see the formation. What makes you think he will find it if he does a barrel roll? In addition, it is likely that he will not be able to do a roll without going all over the place or totally losing control. All that does is burn precious altitude. If he cannot stay with a formation or even keep it in sight, he needs to get more practice with smaller formations that will better accommodate his needs. Trying to fix the problem without backing up a few steps and improving his skills just puts more people in danger.

If you do not answer a simple question that several people have asked, you force us to think that you are a business to stay away from. DID YOU SEND THE CANOPY SIZE THAT THE CUSTOMER ORDERED? The answer can be either "Yes" or "No". Which is it?

Hi Jerry, I fully understand that Group Membership means only as much as the Group Member wants it to mean. The original question I was answering was about how much it costs to be a GM. Someone had posted that USPA gouged dropzones, and then someone asked how much a membership costs. Over time, and in more threads than just this one, some posts make me think that some people feel that Group Membership somehow makes you better or more reputable. You and I both know that this is far from true. Personally, I neither defend nor attack Group Membership. I just say that Group Membership is a club. The club has dues. If you feel the club is worth the dues, you may decide to join. If you don't, you won't join. Or you may decide not to join because you don't like something about the club. There can be good dropzones who are not Group Members, just as much as there can be horrible dropzones that are Group Members. (Sheridan was Ted Mayfield, right? I've been around long enough to know some of the sport's history

If the DZ fails to follow this pledge, nothing happens.......... They are still an USPA GM DZ. USPA does not inspect DZ's for compliance. Derek V I am not sure what your point is. Are you saying that everybody should join and pay USPA because it really doesn't mean anything in the first place? All I said was that there are a variety of reasons for a dropzone to want to be or not want to be a USPA Group Member. The value of it, or the lack of value, as the case may be, is up to the DZO to determine. My home dz is a Group Member. The DZO must feel it has some value. Bill apparently does not. Neither is particularly right or particularly wrong that I can see.

There's a thread over in the General Skydiving Discussions forum you might want to read. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3833943;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread (I hope I made the clicky work right.) There's been substantial discussion of this already.

Reading the GM application, it looks like Lodi would be a "Category 3" dropzone, with annual fees of $550, and a one-time start up fee of $200. But, the money is not the only consideration. There are restrictions and requirements that a DZ might not want to agree to. Here is the Group Member Pledge from the application • Agree to abide by USPA’s Skydiving Service Code of Conduct (below). • Include USPA in the Group Member hold-harmless release, consistent with state laws. (U.S. DZs only. New applicants, please provide a copy of the waiver with this application.) I further understand that granting of such membership or any renewal thereof is purely at the discretion of USPA. USPA may make its decision to grant or renew an application based upon information and sources that, at its sole discretion, it finds appropriate. I further understand that either party retains the right, on 30 days notice, to terminate my Group Membership for any reason whatsoever. Should I decide to terminate such membership, I will not be entitled to any refund of initial application fees or renewal fees. I certify that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

From the Skydiver Advisory So, we have instances where a reserve pin was extracted (ripcord pull and/or RSL) at a sufficient altitude, and a reserve failed to deploy. Sure, we can agree that the AAD question makes things a lot less certain, but if a ripcord was pulled, a deployment should occur. Even if it is related to the relative popularity of rigs, why not just be clear about what we are seeing these things on? As Wendy said, it is likely a bit late to tell people to pull the handle for their next repack, since a lot of rigs won't get another inspection until 6 months from now. Telling us what rigs are involved might encourage someone to pull a handle even though the rig was recently repacked. If the problem is somehow related to rigging, knowing which rigs are involved might encourage a rigger to be extra careful with rigs of those types. How does it hurt anyone to publish the raw data for all to see?

That's a bit like saying that when a credit card company does something illegal, anyone who accepts the credit card is part of the crime. It may be true for some of the dropzones, but it surely will not be true for all the dropzones. Sure, it is time for a renewed effort to dissuade our dropzones who take the certificates to stop. I'll certainly speak to the DZO at my favorite dz the next time I see him. But it really isn't clear that they are all criminals. I said they are accomplices, I suppose I can see where someone could see that as calling them criminals, So, to be a bit more "Politically correct" I guess I would call it "guilty by association". When I looked up "accomplice", I got "an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime". As I said, now that we have a court saying that what they did was illegal, we have a better chance to get people to stop taking the GCs. But simply taking the GCs in the past did not necessarily make anybody an accomplice. Please don't think that I am in any way supporting SR. I don't. I am very glad that the recent developments say that SR was even worse than we'd previously established. I just won't accept that everybody who took those GCs was an accomplice. And, when you consider that none of the victims will ever see any money back from SR, accepting that GC now is actually minimizing the victim's loss. That's a public service, not a crime.

That's a bit like saying that when a credit card company does something illegal, anyone who accepts the credit card is part of the crime. It may be true for some of the dropzones, but it surely will not be true for all the dropzones. Sure, it is time for a renewed effort to dissuade our dropzones who take the certificates to stop. I'll certainly speak to the DZO at my favorite dz the next time I see him. But it really isn't clear that they are all criminals.

Even if the information is available, why should we have to work to get at it? If it was time to publish a "Skydiver Advisory", why not just include the data for all to see? USPA has it all together, or there wouldn't be a "Skydiver Advisory" in the first place. They didn't have to draw any conclusions, just present the data with the advisory. Let us all have the tools to make the decisions we need to make.

Thanks John!! You have the stature to say things that might be ignored if others were to say them. I absolutely support your call for full and immediate disclosure of all the information that is available. Skydivers have a right to see if these problems relate to particular gear or not. Disclosing the facts would give the members the information they need to make informed decisions about the whole mess. Personally, I found other things equally troubling as the things that you mention. For example, reading between the lines, it is clear that USPA is admitting that our current training and testing strategies are failing to produce competent skydivers. Were that not true, how could be have people who prefer to wait for the AAD to fire instead of executing emergency procedures in the first place? USPA has been placing a lot of emphasis on how the membership numbers are growing. I don't see that as necessarily a good thing if the participants are unable to perform as required for safe skydiving. Furthermore, I feel it speaks of a disastrous future for the sport if it is not addressed forthwith. The excellent numbers in 2009 were a fluke if skydivers are not able to address the situations that will arise in the course of their jumping careers. Again, thanks for your post! -paul

"Shot bag" weights are widely used to help hold things in place while packing as you move from working on one part of a canopy to another. Shot bag weights are somewhat flexible, and will conform to the shape (to some extent) of whatever you put them on. For example, as you are flaking fabric on one side of a canopy, and now need to flake the other side, you might put shot bag weights on the part you are about to leave. The part that you are about to leave will likely not have a uniform thickness. In the case of flaking fabric of the parachute cells, the lines will be towards the middle of the pack job and will create a thicker area. The semi-flexible shot bag weight will be able to conform to the shape of what you put it on better than a solid bar of stock. In addition, even powder coated bar stock will likely be less compatible with the parachute fabric than a shot bag that is made of some sort of fabric. I encourage you to spend some time with a rigger. Many (if not most) will be happy to show you the sorts of things that go into caring for your rig at the time of the Inspection & Repack.

Cabella's also has nickle-plated lead shot. Not exactly cheap, but should also control lead dust etc.

Terry, While I would agree her e-mail implies that, in absence of mfg method, that this is the way to do it, she actually said that this is an approved method (technically that would imply that there may be other approved methods). I would like to get away from lead, but not sure what I would prefer... Meanwhile, a suggestion: Not wanting to dispose of a "hazardous" material in the trash, I kept dropping them in a jar over the years... Recently, when looking for another packing weight, I realized that I had enough old seals to make one.

So, what about this would be "nice"? PhreeZone already said he hated packing a -MZ (Hybrid ZP reserve). Non-ZP fabrics are known to be less prone to catastrophic failures. So, what about a ZPX reserve will be enticing? If you are thinking about the reduced pack volume that you might see, and want to compare that to the Optimum, remember that the Optimum fabric is NOT ZP. What size are you looking for?

Spinning linetwists. Flight Concepts 170. I'd have to say it was loaded below 1:1. She may or may not have pulled a little low. I don't particularly remember the pack job, which is actually a good thing, because if i thought any part of the pack job wasn't decent, i'd remember it. The person who used your pack job took it on herself. I don't think you owe anything. Like it or not, the FARs are clear that a non-certified person is only supposed to pack his own main parachute, unless he is under the direct supervision of a rigger who is taking responsibility for the packing. Once people are ignoring that, liability rests with the user. Personally, I pack for myself. If I loan my rig, I tell them to return it open. If they return it packed, I repack it. That way, I am always personally responsible for what comes out of my rig, and there's never any question of who may have done what.

But doesn't this still mean that the rigger fell short of completely addressing his responsibilities? Didn't he accept "looks good enough" instead of being sure that it was done correctly? Aren't we supposed to be doing better than that?

I wonder if that means it is technically illegal to bring a BASE Rig on a commercial flight. I don't think that a rig, BASE or skydiving, on a commercial flight is "available for emergency use". You didn't carry it onto the plane with the notion that it was a safety device to protect you in the event of an inflight emergency, did you? Whereas, a pilot emergency rig is put on the aircraft with the express intention that the pilot might use it in certain circumstances. There have been discussion in the past regarding the efficacy of getting out of a crippled airliner on your checked or even carry-on gear. As I recall, the conclusions did not support it as a viable option.